A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. Practically, a state without a state religion is called a secular state. The term state church is associated with Christianity, and is sometimes used to denote a specific national branch of Christianity. Closely related to state churches are what sociologists call ecclesiae, though the two are slightly different. State religions are examples of the official or government-sanctioned establishment of religion, as distinct from theocracy. It is also possible for a national church to become established without being under state control. The first national church was the Armenian Orthodox Church which was established in 301 A.D.[1]

Types of state churches

The degree and nature of state backing for denomination or creed designated as a state religion can vary. It can range from mere endorsement and financial support, with freedom for other faiths to practice, to prohibiting any competing religious body from operating and to persecuting the followers of other sects. In Europe, competition between Catholic and Protestant denominations for state sponsorship in the 16th century evolved the principle cuius regio eius religio ("states follow the religion of the ruler") embodied in the text of the treaty that marked the Peace of Augsburg, 1555. In England the monarch imposed Protestantism in 1533, with himself taking the place of the Pope, while in Scotland the Church of Scotland opposed the religion of the ruler.

In some cases, a state may have a set of state-sponsored religious denominations that it funds; such is the case in Alsace-Moselle in France under its local law, following the pattern in Germany.

In some communist states, notably in North Korea and Cuba, the state sponsors religious organizations, and activities outside those state-sponsored religious organizations are met with various degrees of official disapproval. In these cases, state religions are widely seen as efforts by the state to prevent alternate sources of authority.

Advertisements

State church vs state religion

There is also a difference between a "state church" and "state religion". A "state church" is created by the state,[citation needed] as in the cases of the Anglican Church, created by Henry VIII or the Church of Sweden, created by Gustav Vasa. An example of "state religion" is Argentina's acceptance of Catholicism as its religion.[2] In the case of the former, the state has absolute control over the church, but in the case of the latter, in this example, the Vatican has control over the church.

Sociology of state churches

Sociologists refer to mainstream non-state religions as denominations. State religions tend to admit a larger variety of opinion within them than denominations. Denominations encountering major differences of opinion within themselves are likely to split; this option is not open for most state churches, so they tend to try to integrate differing opinions within themselves.

Many sociologists now consider the effect of a state church as analogous to a chartered monopoly in religion.

Where state religions exist, it is usually true the majority of residents are officially considered adherents; however, much of this support is little more than nominal; many members of the church rarely attend it. But the population's allegiance towards the state religion is often strong enough to prevent them from joining competing religious groups.

A denomination's status as official religion does not always imply that the jurisdiction prohibits the existence or operation of other sects or religious bodies. It all depends upon the government and the level of tolerance the citizens of that country have for other religions. Some countries with official religions have laws that guarantee the freedom of worship, full liberty of conscience, and places of worship for all citizens; and implement those laws more than other countries that do not have an official or established state religion.

Disestablishment

Disestablishment is the process of depriving a church of its status as an organ of the state. Supporters of retaining an established church call themselves "antidisestablishmentarianists" — one of the longest words in the English language.

England

In late-19th-century England there was a campaign by Liberals, dissenters and nonconformists to disestablish the Church of England which was viewed, in the period after civil Chartist activism, as a discriminatory organisation placing employment and other access disabilities on non-members.

The campaigners styled themselves "Liberationists" (the "Liberation Society" was founded by Edward Miall in 1853). Though their campaign failed, nearly all of the legal disabilities of nonconformists were gradually dismantled. The campaign for disestablishment was revived in the 20th century when Parliament rejected the 1929 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, leading to calls for separation of Church and State to prevent political interference in matters of worship. In the late 20th century, reform of the House of Lords also brought into question the position of the Lords Spiritual. Another issue of controversy is the Act of Settlement 1701 which determines succession to the British monarchy, under which the head of state is also the head of the Church of England.

Scotland

Despite some official documentation (marriage registrations being a common example) describing the Church of Scotland as the "Established Church" the Kirk has always disclaimed that status. This was eventually acknowledged by the United Kingdom government within the Church of Scotland Act 1921. Since it has thus never been legally Established it cannot be disestablished.

Wales

In Wales, four Church of England dioceses were disestablished in 1920, becoming separated from the Church of England in the process and subsequently becoming the Church in Wales.

Ireland

United States of America

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federalgovernment from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the US Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary US politics.

Eastern Orthodox

Finland: Finnish Orthodox Church has a special relationship with the Finnish state.[16] The internal structure of the church is described in the Orthodox Church Act. The church has a power to tax its members and corporations if a majority of shareholders are members. The church does not consider itself a state church, as the state does not have the authority to affect its internal workings or theology.

Lutheran

Finland: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland has a special relationship with the Finnish state, its internal structure being described in a special law, the Church Act.[16] The Church Act can be amended only by a decision of the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and subsequent ratification by the parliament. The Church Act is protected by the Finnish constitution, and the state can not change the Church Act without changing the constitution. The church has a power to tax its members and all corporations unless a majority of shareholders are members of the Finnish Orthodox Church. The state collects these taxes for the church, for a fee. On the other hand, the church is required to give a burial place for everyone in its graveyards.[21] The Finnish president also decides the themes for the intercession days. The church does not consider itself a state church, as the Finnish state does not have the power to influence its internal workings or its theology, although it has a veto in those changes of the internal structure which require changing the Church Act. Neither does the Finnish state accord any precedence to Lutherans or the Lutheran faith in its own acts.

Anglican

Jurisdictions that recognise an Anglican church as their state religion:

Islamic countries

Although the separation of church and state was first theorized by Averroes, most Muslim-majority countries recognize Islam as the state religion, but most of them do not place Sharia Law as the constitution itself[citation needed].

Additional notes

Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals. At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions, particularly Orthodox Jewish ones, and recognizes the "religious communities" as carried over from those recognized under the British Mandate. These are: Jewish and Christian (Eastern Orthodox, Latin [Catholic], Gregorian-Armenian, Armenian-Catholic, Syrian [Catholic], Chaldean [Uniate], Greek Catholic Melkite, Maronite, and Syrian Orthodox). The fact that the Muslim population was not defined as a religious community is a vestige of the Ottoman period[citation needed] during which Islam was the dominant religion and does not affect the rights of the Muslim community to practice their faith. At the end of the period covered by this report, several of these denominations were pending official government recognition; however, the Government has allowed adherents of not officially recognized groups freedom to practice. In 1961, legislation gave Muslim Shari'a courts exclusive jurisdiction in matters of personal status. Three additional religious communities have subsequently been recognized by Israeli law – the Druze (prior under Islamic jurisdiction), the Evangelical Episcopal Church, and the Bahá'í.[1] These groups have their own religious courts as official state courts for personal status matters (see millet system). The structure and goals of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are governed by Israeli law, but the law does not say explicitly that it is a state Rabbinate. Non-recognition of other streams of Judaism is the cause of some controversy. As of 2010, there is no civil marriage in Israel, although there is recognition of marriages performed abroad.

Nepal was once the world's only Hindu state, but has ceased to be so following a declaration by the Parliament in 2006.

Many countries indirectly fund the activities of different religious denominations by granting tax-exempt status to churches and religious institutions which qualify as charitable organizations.[28][29] However, these religions are not established as state religions.

Ancient state religions

Egypt and Sumer

The concept of state religions was known as long ago as the empires of Egypt and Sumer, when every city state or people had its own god or gods. Many of the early Sumerian rulers were priests of their patron city god. Some of the earliest semi-mythological kings may have passed into the pantheon, like Dumuzid, and some later kings came to be viewed as divine soon after their reigns, like Sargon the Great of Akkad. One of the first rulers to be proclaimed a god during his actual reign was Gudea of Lagash, followed by some later kings of Ur, such as Shulgi. Often, the state religion was integral to the power base of the reigning government, such as in Egypt, where Pharaohs were often thought of as embodiments of the god Horus.

Persian empire

Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Sassanid dynasty which lasted until 651, when Persia was conquered by the forces of Islam. However, it persisted as the state religion of the independent state of Hyrcania until the 15th century.

The tiny kingdom of Adiabene in northern Mesopotamia converted to Judaism around 34 AD.

Greek city-states

Many of the Greek city-states also had a 'god' or 'goddess' associated with that city. This would not be the 'only god' of the city, but the one that received special honors. In ancient Greece the city of Athens had Athena, Sparta had Ares, Delphi had Apollo and Artemis, and Olympia had ZeusCorinth had Poseidon, and Thebes had Demeter

Roman Religion and Christianity

In Rome, the office of Pontifex Maximus came to be reserved for the emperor, who was often declared a 'god' posthumously, or sometimes during his reign. Failure to worship the emperor as a god was at times punishable by death, as the Roman government sought to link emperor worship with loyalty to the Empire. Many Christians and Jews were subject to persecution, torture and death in the Roman Empire, because it was against their beliefs to worship the emperor.

In 311, Emperor Galerius, on his deathbed, declared a religious indulgence to Christians throughout the Roman Empire, focusing on the ending of anti-Christian persecution. Constantine I and Licinius, the two Augusti, by the Edict of Milan of 313, enacted a law allowing religious freedom to everyone within the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the Edict of Milan cited that Christians may openly practice their religion unmolested and unrestricted, and provided that properties taken from Christians be returned to them unconditionally. Although the Edict of Milan allowed religious freedom throughout the empire, it did not abolish nor disestablish the Roman state cult (Roman polytheistic paganism). The Edict of Milan was written in such a way as to implore the blessings of the deity.

Constantine called up the First Council of Nicaea in 325, although he was not a baptised Christian until years later. Despite enjoying considerable popular support, Christianity was still not the official state religion in Rome, although it was in some neighboring states such as Armenia and Aksum.

Catholic Christianity, as opposed to Arianism and other heretical and schismatic groups, was declared to be the state religion of the Roman Empire on February 27, 380[30] by the decree De Fide Catolica of Emperor Theodosius I.[31]

Han Dynasty Confucianism

In China, the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD) advocated Confucianism as the de facto state religion, establishing tests based on Confucian texts as an entrance requirement into government service—although, in fact, the "Confucianism" advocated by the Han emperors may be more properly termed a sort of Confucian Legalism or "State Confucianism". This sort of Confucianism continued to be regarded by the emperors, with a few notable exceptions, as a form of state religion from this time until the overthrow of the imperial system of government in 1911. Note however, there is a debate over whether Confucianism (including Neo-confucianism) is a religion or purely a philosophical system.

Modern era

Empire of Japan

From the Meiji era to the first part of the Showa era, Koshitsu Shinto was established in Japan as the national religion. According to this, the emperor of Japan was an arahitogami, an incarnate divinity and the offspring of goddess Amaterasu. As the emperor was, according to the constitution, "head of the empire" and "supreme commander of the Army and the Navy", every Japanese citizen had to obey his will and show absolute loyalty.

States without any state religion

These states do not profess any state religion, and are generally secular or laique. Countries which officially decline to establish any religion include:

^ Finland's State Church was the Church of Sweden until 1809. As an autonomous Grand Duchy under Russia 1809-1917, Finland retained the Lutheran State Church system, and a state church separate from Sweden, later named the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, was established. It was detached from the state as a separate judicial entity when the new church law came to force in 1870. After Finland had gained independence in 1917, religious freedom was declared in the constitution of 1919 and a separate law on religious freedom in 1922. Through this arrangement, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland lost its position as a state church but gained a constitutional status as a national church alongside with the Finnish Orthodox Church, whose position however is not codified in the constitution.

^ In Hungary the constitutional laws of 1848 declared five established churches on equal status: the Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox and Unitarian Church. In 1868 the law was ratified again after the Ausgleich. In 1895 Judaism was also recognized as the sixth established church. In 1948 every distinction between the different denominations were abolished.

The Colony of Maryland was founded by a charter granted in 1632 to George Calvert, secretary of state to Charles I, and his son Cecil, both recent converts to Roman Catholicism. Under their leadership many English Catholic gentry families settled in Maryland. However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, granting toleration to all Christian groups and enjoining them to avoid actions which antagonized the others. On several occasions low-church dissenters led insurrections which temporarily overthrew the Calvert rule. In 1689, when William and Mary came to the English throne, they acceded to demands to revoke the original royal charter. In 1701 the Church of England was proclaimed, and in the course of the eighteenth century Maryland Catholics were first barred from public office, then disenfranchised, although not all of the laws passed against them (notably laws restricting property rights and imposing penalties for sending children to be educated in foreign Catholic institutions) were enforced, and some Catholics even continued to hold public office.

Spanish Florida was ceded to Great Britain in 1763, the British divided Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida continued a policy of toleration for the Catholic Residents.

Delaware Colony had no established church, but was contested between Catholics and Quakers.

The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissenters forced to flee the Massachusetts Bay colony, is widely regarded as the first polity to grant religious freedom to all its citizens, although Catholics were barred intermittently. Baptists, Seekers/Quakers and Jews made this colony their home.

^Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776;[42] this is the date of permanent legal abolition.

^Note 2: in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows: "Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged. To do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles."

^Note 3: From 1780 Massachusetts had a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members, but forbade any law requiring that it be of any particular denomination. This was objected to, as in practice establishing the Congregational Church, the majority denomination, and was abolished in 1833.

^Note 4: Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion.

^Note 5: The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[43] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

^Note 6: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

^Note 8: Tithes for the support of the Anglican Church in Virginia were suspended in 1776, and never restored. 1786 is the date of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which prohibited any coercion to support any religious body.

Other Colonies

In both cases, these areas were disestablished and dissolved, yet their presences were tolerated by the Anglo-American government, as Foreign Protestants, whose communities were expected to observe their own ways without causing controversy or conflict for the prevalent colonists. After the Revolution, their ethno-religious backgrounds were chiefly sought as the most compatible non-British Isles immigrants.

State of Deseret

The State of Deseret was a provisional state of the United States, proposed in 1849 by Mormon settlers in Salt Lake City. The provisional state existed for slightly over two years, but attempts to gain recognition by the United States government floundered for various reasons. The Utah Territory which was then founded was under Mormon control, and repeated attempts to gain statehood met resistance, in part due to concerns over the principle of separation of church and state conflicting with the practice of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of placing their highest value on "following counsel" in virtually all matters relating to their church-centered lives. The state of Utah was eventually admitted to the union on January 4, 1896, after the various issues had been resolved.[44]

^The Constitution of the Italian Republic, http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf, "The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, each within its own sphere. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments. [...] Denominations other than Catholicism have the right to self-organisation according to their own statutes, provided these do not conflict with Italian law. Their relations with the State are regulated by law, based on agreements with their respective representatives."

^The Constitution of the Republic of Poland, 1997-04-02, http://sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm, "The relations between the Republic of Poland and the Roman Catholic Church shall be determined by international treaty concluded with the Holy See, and by statute. The relations between the Republic of Poland and other churches and religious organizations shall be determined by statutes adopted pursuant to agreements concluded between their appropriate representatives and the Council of Ministers."

^(pdf) Draft of Tsa Thrim Chhenmo, www.constitution.bt, August 1, 2007, http://www.constitution.bt/draft_constitution_3rd_en.pdf, retrieved 2007-10-18Article 3, Spiritual Heritage
1. Buddhism is the spiritual heritage of Bhutan, which promotes the principles and values of peace, non-violence, compassion and tolerance.
2. The Druk Gyalpo is the protector of all religions in Bhutan.
3. It shall be the responsibility of religious institutions and personalities to promote the spiritual heritage of the country while also ensuring that religion remains separate from politics in Bhutan. Religious institutions and personalities shall remain above politics.
4. The Druk Gyalpo shall, on the recommendation of the Five Lopons, appoint a learned and respected monk ordained in accordance with the Druk-lu, blessed with the nine qualities of a spiritual master and accomplished in ked-dzog, as the Je Khenpo. 5. His Holiness the Je Khenpo shall, on the recommendation of the Dratshang Lhentshog, appoint monks blessed with the nine qualities of a spiritual master and accomplished in ked-dzog as the Five Lopons.
6. The members of the Dratshang Lhentshog shall comprise:
(a) The Je Khenpo as Chairman;
(b) The Five Lopons of the Zhung Dratshang; and
(c) The Secretary of the Dratshang Lhentshog who is a civil servant.
7. The Zhung Dratshang and Rabdeys shall continue to receive adequate funds and other facilities from the State.

^ The Constitution of Lebanon specifies that the President is elected by the Chamber of Deputies, in which equal representation between Christians and Muslims is constitutionally required, and specifies that the President designates the Prime Minister in consultation with the President of the Chamber of Deputies.

^ Article 25 of the constitution states: "1. Churches and other religious organizations shall have equal rights. 2. Public authorities in the Republic of Poland shall be impartial in matters of personal conviction"

^ Under the 1967 Constitution, Roman Catholicism was the state religion (Article 6: "The Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is the state religion, without prejudice to religious freedom, which is guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. Official relations of the republic with the Holy See shall be governed by concordats or other bilateral agreements." The 1992 Constitution, which replaced the 1967 one, establishes Paraguay as a secular state, as mentioned in section (1) of Article 24: "Freedom of religion, worship, and ideology is recognized without any restrictions other than those established in this Constitution and the law. The State has no official religion."

From LoveToKnow 1911

CHURCH HISTORY. The sketch given below of the
evolution of the
Christian Church (see Church) may well be prefaced by a summary of
the history of the great Church historians, concerning whom fuller
details are given in separate articles. Hegesippus wrote in the 2nd century a
collection of memoirs containing accounts of the early days of the
church, only fragments of which are extant. The first real church
history was written by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early
part of the 4th century. His work was continued in the 5th century
by Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and in later centuries by TheodorusLector, Evagrius, Theophanes and others. In the 14th century
Nicephorus Callisti
undertook a complete church history which covers in its extant form
the first six centuries. In the West Eusebius' History was translated into
Latin by Rufinus, and continued
down to the end of the 4th century. Augustine's City of
God, published in 426, was an apologetic, not an historical
work, but it had great influence in our field, for in it he
undertook to answer the common heathenaccusation that the growing misfortunes of
the empire were due to the prevalence of Christianity and the forsaking of the gods
of Rome. It was to sustain
Augustine's thesis that Orosius produced in 417 his Historiarum
libri septem, which remained the standard text-book on world
history during the middle ages. About the same time Sulpicius
Severus wrote his Historia Sacra, covering both
biblical and Christian history. In the 6th century Cassiodorus had a
translation made of the histories of Socrates, Sozomen and
Theodoret, which were woven into one continuous narrative and
brought down to 518. The work was known as the Historia
Ecclesiastica Tripartita, and constituted during the middle
ages the principal text-book of church history in the West. Before
writing his history Eusebius produced a world chronicle which was
based upon a similar work by Julius Africanus and is now
extant only in part. It was continued by Jerome, and became the
basis of the model for many similar works of the 5th and following
centuries by Prosper, Idatius, Marcellinus Comes, Victor Tununensis
and Others. Local histories containing more or less ecclesiastical
material were written in the 6th and following centuries by Jordanes (History of the
Goths), Gregory
of Tours (History of the Franks), Isidore of Seville (History of
the Goths, Vandals and
Suevi), Bede
(Ecclesiastical History of England), Paulus Diaconus (History of the Lombards), and others.
Of the many historians of the middle ages, besides the authors of
biographies, chronicles, cloister annals, &c., may be mentioned
Haymo, Anastasius, Adam of Bremen, Ordericus Vitalis, Honorius of Autun, Otto of Freising, Vincent of
Beauvais and Antoninus of Florence.

The Protestant
reformation resulted in a new development of historical writing.
Polemic interest led a number of Lutheran scholars of the 16th
century to publish the Magdeburg Centuries (1 559 ff.), in
which they undertook to show the primitive character of the
Protestant faith in contrast with the alleged corruptions of Roman
Catholicism. In this design they were followed by many other
writers. The opposite thesis was maintained by Baronius
(Annales Ecclesiastici, 1588 ff.), whose work was
continued by a number of Roman Catholic scholars. Other
notable Roman Catholic
historians of the 17th and 18th centuries were Natalis Alexander,
Bossuet, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin and Ceillier.

Church history began to be written in a genuinely scientific
spirit only in the 18th century under the leadership of Mosheim,
who is commonly called the father of modern church history. With
wide learning and keen critical insight he wrote a number of
historical works of which the most important is his
Institutiones Hist. Eccles. (1755; best English trans. by
Murdock). He was followed by many disciples, among them Schroeckh
(Christliche Kirchengeschichte, 1772 ff. in 45 vols.).
Other notable names of the 18th century are Semler, Spittler, Henke
and Planck.

The new historical spirit of the 19th century did much for
church history. Among the greatest works produced were those of J.
C. L. Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 1824 ff.,
best Eng. tr. revised and edited by H. B. Smith), exceedingly objective in character and
still valuable, particularly on account of its copious citations
from the sources; Neander (Allgemeine Geschichte der
christlichen Religion and Kirche, 1825 ff., Eng. tr. by
Torrey), who wrote in a sympathetic spirit and with special stress
upon the religious side of the subject, and has been followed by
many disciples, for instance, Hagenbach, Schaff and Herzog; and
Baur (Das Christenthum and die christliche Kirche, 1853
ff.), the most brilliant of all, whose many historical works were
dominated by the principles of the Hegelian philosophy and evinced both the merits and
defects of that school. Baur has had tremendous influence, even
though many of his positions have been generally discredited. The
problems particularly of the primitive history were first brought
into clear light by him, and all subsequent work upon the subject
must acknowledge its indebtedness to him.

A new era was opened by the publication in 1857 of the second
edition of Ritschl's Entstehung der altkatholischen
Kirche, in which he broke away from the Tubingen school and
introduced new points of view that have revolutionized the
interpretation of the early church. Of recent works the most
important are the Kirchengeschichte of Carl Muller (1892
ff.) and that of W. Moller (1889 ff., second edition by von
Schuberth, 1898 ff., greatly enlarged and improved), the
translation of the latter (1892 ff.) being the most useful
text-book in English. Of modern Roman Catholic works may be
mentioned those by J. A. Mahler, T. B. Alzog, F. X. Kraus, CardinalJoseph von HergenrOther and C.
J. von Hefele (edited by KnOpfler.) In addition to these general
works on church history should be named the histories of doctrine
by Harnack, Loofs, Seeberg and Fisher; and on the early Church the
works on the apostolic age by Weizsacker (1886, English translation
1894), McGiffert (1897), and Bartlet (1899); Renan's Histoire
des origines du christianisme (1867 ff., in 7 vols.,
translated in part); Pfleiderer's Urchristenthum (1887);
S. Cheetham's History of the Christian Church during the first
Six Centuries (1894); Wernle's Anf¢nge unserer
Religion (1901; Eng. tr. 1902 ff.); Rainy's Ancient
Catholic Church (1902); Knopf's Nachapostolisches
Zeitalter (1905); Duchesne's Histoire ancienne de
l'Eglise (vol. i., 1906). (A. C. McG.) In the following
account of the historical evolution of the Church, the subject will
be treated in three sections: of the (A) The ancient
Church to the beginning of the pontifi- Christian cate of
Gregory the Great (A.D.
590); (B) The Church A. THE Ancient Church I. Origin and
Growth. - The crucifixion of Jesus Christ resulted in the scattering of
his followers, but within a short time they became convinced that
he had risen from the dead, and would soon return to set up the
expected Messianic kingdom, and so to accomplish the true work of
the Messiah (cf. Acts i. 6
ff.). They were thus enabled to retain the belief in his
Messiahship which his death had threatened to destroy permanently.
This belief laid upon them the responsibility of bringing as many
of their countrymen as possible to recognize him as Messiah, and to
prepare themselves by repentance and righteousness for the coming
kingdom (cf. Acts ii. 21, 38, iii. 19 sq.). It was with the sense
of this responsibility that they gathered again in Jerusalem, the political
and religious metropolis of Judaism. In Jerusalem the new
movement had its centre, and the church established there is
rightly known as the mother church of Christendom. The life of the
early Jewish disciples, so far as we are able to judge from our meagre sources, was very much the
same as that of their fellows. They continued faithful to the
established synagogue
and temple worship (cf. Acts iii. 1), and did not think of founding
a new sect, or of separating from
the household of Israel (cf.
Acts x. 14, xv. 5, xxi. 21 sq.). There is no evidence that their
religious or ethical ideals differed in any marked degree from
those of the more serious-minded among their countrymen, for the
emphasis which they laid upon the need of righteousness was not at
all uncommon. In their belief, however, in the Messiahship of
Jesus, and their consequent assurance of the speedy establishment
by him of the Messianic kingdom, they stood alone. The first need
of the hour, therefore, was to show that Jesus was the promised
Messiah in spite of his crucifixion, a need that was met chiefly by
testimony to the resurrection, which became the burden of the message of the early disciples to their
fellow-countrymen (cf. Acts ii. 24 ff., iii. 15 ff., v. 31). It was
this need which led also to the development of Messianic prophecy
and the ultimate interpretation of the Jewish Bible as a Christian book (see Bible). The second need of the hour was to bring
the nation to repentance and righteousness in order that the
kingdom might come (cf. Acts iii. 19). The specific gospel of Jesus, the gospel of
divine fatherhood and human brotherhood, received no attention in
the earliest days, so far as our sources enable us to judge.

Meanwhile the new movement spread quite naturally beyond the
confines of Palestine
and found adherents among the Jews
of the dispersion, and
at an early day among the Gentiles as well. Many of the latter had
already come under the influence of Judaism, and were more or less
completely in sympathy with Jewish religious principles. Among the
Christians who did most to spread the gospel in the Gentile world was the apostlePaul, whose conversion was the greatest event in
the history of the early Church. In his hands Christianity became a
new religion, fitted to meet the needs of all the world, and freed
entirely of the local and national meaning which had hitherto
attached to it. According to the early disciples Jesus was the
Jewish Messiah, and had significance only in relation to the
expected Messianic kingdom. To establish that kingdom was his one
great aim. For the Gentiles he had no message except as they might
become members of the family of Israel, assuming the
responsibilities and enjoying the privileges of proselytes. But
Paul saw in Jesus much more than the Jewish Messiah. He saw in Christ the divine Spirit, who had
come down from heaven to
transform the lives of men, all of whom are sinners. Thus Jesus had
the same significance for one man as for another, and Christianity
was meant as much for Gentiles as for Jews. The kingdom of which
the early disciples were talking was interpreted by Paul as
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. xiv. 17), a new principle of living,
not a Jewish state. But Paul taught also, on the basis of a
religious experience and of a distinct theory of redemption (see
McGiffert's Apostolic Age, ch. iii.), that the Christian
is freed from the obligation to observe the Jewish law. He
thus did away with the fundamental distinction between Jews and
Gentiles. The transformed spiritual life of the believer expresses
itself not in the observance of the Jewish law, but in love, purity
and peace. This precipitated a very serious conflict, of which we
learn something from the Epistle to the Galatians and
the Book of Acts (xv. and xxii.). Other fundamental principles of
Paul's failed of comprehension and acceptance, but the belief
finally prevailed that the observance of Jewish law and custom was
unnecessary, and that in the Christian Church there is no
distinction between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Those
Jewish Christians who refused to go with the rest of the Church in
this matter lived their separate life, and were regarded as an
heretical sect known as the Ebionites.

It was Christianity in its universal form which won its great.
victories, and finally became permanently established in the Roman
world. The appeal which it made to that world was many-sided. It
was a time of moral reformation, when men were awaking to the need
of better and purer living. To all who felt this need Christianity
offered high moral ideals, and a tremendous moral enthusiasm, in
its devotion to a beloved leader, in its emphasis upon the ethical
possibilities of the meanest, and in its faith in a future life of
blessedness for the righteous. It was a time of great religious
interest, when old cults were being revived and new ones were
finding acceptance on all sides. Christianity, with its one God,
and its promise of redemption and a blessed immortality based upon divine revelation,
met as no other contemporary faith did the awakening religious
needs. It was a time also of great social unrest. With its
principle of Christian brotherhood, its emphasis upon the equality
of all believers in the sight of God, and its preaching of a new social order to be set up
at the return of Christ, it appealed strongly to multitudes,
particularly of the poorer classes. That it won a permanent
success, and finally took possession of the Roman world, was due to
its combination of appeals. No one thing about it commended it to
all, and to no one thing alone did it owe its victory, but to the
fact that it met a greater variety of needs and met them more
satisfactorily than any other movement of the age. Contributing
also to the growth of the Church was the zeal of its converts, the
great majority of whom regarded themselves as missionaries and did
what they could to extend the new faith. Christianity was
essentially a proselytizing religion, not content to appeal simply
to one class or race of people, and to be one among many faiths,
but believing in the falsity or insufficiency of all others and
eager to convert the whole world. Moreover, the feeling of unity
which bound Christians everywhere together and made of them one
compact whole, and which found expression before many generations
had passed in a strong organization, did much for the spread of the
Church. Identifying himself with the Christian circle from the 2nd
century on, a man became a member of a society existing in all
quarters of the empire, every part conscious of its oneness with
the larger whole and all compactly organized to do the common work.
The growth of the Church during the Church. in the middle
ages; (C) The modern Church.

earlier centuries was chiefly in the middle and lower classes,
but it was not solely there. No large number of the aristocracy were
reached, but in learned and philosophical circles many were won,
attracted both by Christianity's evident ethical power and by its
philosophical character (cf. the Apologists of the 2nd century).
That it could seem at once a simple way of living for the common
man and a profound philosophy of the universe for the speculative
thinker meant much for its success.' But it did not win its victory
without a struggle. Superstition, misunderstanding and hatred
caused the Christians trouble for many generations, and
governmental repression they had to suffer occasionally, as a
result of popular disturbances. No systematic effort was made by
the imperial authorities to put an end to the movement until the
reign of Decius (250-251), whose policy of suppression was followed
by Diocletian (303
ff.) and continued for some years after his abdication. In spite of all opposition the
Church steadily grew, until in 3" the emperorGalerius upon his death-bed granted toleration (see Eusebius, H.E. x.4,
and Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 34), and in 3 1
3 the emperors Constantine and Licinius published the edict of Milan, proclaiming the principle of complete
religious liberty, and making Christianity a legal religion in the
full sense (see Eusebius x. 5, and Lactantius 48. Seeck,
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, xii. 381 sq., has
attempted to show that the edict of Milan had no significance, but
without success).

Constantine, recognizing the growing strength of the Church and
wishing to enlist the loyal support of the Christians, treated them
with increasing favour, and finally was baptized upon his death-bed
(337). Under his successors, except during the brief reign of Julian (361-363), when the effort
was made to reinstate paganism in its former place of supremacy,
the Church received growing support, until, under Theodosius the Great
(379-395), orthodox Christianity, which stood upon the platform adopted at Nicaea in 325, was finally
established as the sole official religion of the state, and heathen
worship was put under the ban. The
union between Church and State thus constituted continued unbroken
in the East throughout the middle ages. The division of the Empire
resulted finally in the division of the Church, which was
practically complete by the end of the 6th century, but was made
official and final only in 1054, and the Eastern and Western
halves, the Greek Catholic and the Roman Catholic Churches, went
each its separate way. (See Theodosian Code, book 16, for the
various imperial edicts relating to the Church, and for fuller
particulars touching the relation between Church and Empire see the
articles Constantine; Gratian; Theodosius; Justinian.) For a long time after the
establishment of Christianity as the state religion, paganism
continued strong, especially in the country districts, and in some
parts of the world had more adherents than Christianity, but at
length the latter became, at any rate nominally, the faith of the
whole Roman world. Meanwhile already before the beginning of the
3rd century it went beyond the confines of the Empire in Asia, and by the end of our period
was strong in Armenia, Persia, Arabia and even farther east. It reached the
barbarians on the northern and western borders at an early day, and
the Goths were already Christians of the Arian type before the
great migrations of the 4th century began. Other barbarians became
Christian, some in their own homes beyond the confines of the
Empire, some within the Empire itself, so that when the hegemony of the West passed
from the Romans to the
barbarians the Church lived on. Thenceforth for centuries it was
not only the chief religious, but also the chief civilizing, force
at work in the occident. Losing with the dissolution of the Western Empire its
position as the state church, it became itself a new empire, the
heir of the glory and dignity of
Rome, and the greatest influence making for the peace and unity of
the western world.

2. The Christian Life. - The most notable thing about
the life of 1 Upon the spread of the Church during the early
centuries see especially Harnack's Mission and Ausbreitung des Christenthums in
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. An interesting parallel to the
spread of Christianity in the Roman empire is afforded by the
contemporary Mithraism. See Cumont's Les Mysteres de Mithra
(igoo), Eng. tr. The Mysteries of Mithra (1903).

the early Christians was their vivid sense of being a people of
God, called and set apart. The Christian Church in their thought
was a divine, not a human, institution. It was founded and
controlled by God, and even the world was created for its sake (cf.
the Shepherd of Hermas, Vis. ii. 4,
and 2 Clement 14).14). This conception, which
came over from Judaism, controlled all the life of the early
Christians both individual and social. They regarded themselves as
separate from the rest of the world and bound together by peculiar
ties. Their citizenship was in heaven, not on earth (cf. Phil. iii.
20, and the epistle to Diognetus, c. 5), and
the principles and laws by which they strove to govern themselves
were from above. The present world was but temporary, and their
true life was in the future. Christ was soon to return, and the
employments and labours and pleasures of this age were of small
concern. Some went so far as to give up their accustomed vocations,
and with such Paul had to expostulate in his epistles to the
Thessalonians. A more or less ascetic mode of life was also
natural under the circumstances. Not necessarily that the present
world was evil, but that it was temporary and of small worth, and
that a Christian's heart should
be set on higher things. The belief that the Church was a
supernatural institution found expression in the Jewish notion of
the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. It was believed among
the Jews that the Messianic age would be the age of the Spirit in a
marked degree, and this belief passed over into the Christian
Church and controlled its thought and life for some generations.
The Holy Spirit was supposed to be manifest in various striking ways, in
prophecy, speaking with tongues and miracle working. In this idea Paul also shared,
but he carried the matter farther than most of his contemporaries
and saw in the Spirit the abiding power and ground of the Christian
life. Not simply in extraordinary phenomena, but also in the
everyday life of Christians, the Holy Spirit was present, and all
the Christian graces
were the fruits (cf. Gal. v. 22). A result of this belief
was to give their lives a peculiarly enthusiastic or inspirational
character. Theirs were not the everyday experiences of ordinary
men, but of men lifted out of themselves and transported into a
higher sphere. With the passing of time the early enthusiasm waned,
the expectation of the immediate return of Christ was widely given
up, the conviction of the Spirit's presence became less vivid, and
the conflict with heresy in
the 2nd century led to the substitution of official control for the
original freedom (see below). The late 2nd century movement known
as Montanism was in
essence a revolt against this growing secularization of the Church,
but the movement failed, and the development against which it
protested was only hastened. The Church as an institution now
looked forward to a long life upon earth and adjusted itself to the
new situation, taking on largely the forms and customs of the world
in which it lived. This did not mean that the Church ceased to
regard itself as a supernatural institution, but only that its
supernatural character was shown in a different way. A Christian
was still dependent upon divine aid for salvation, and his life was
still supernatural at least in theory. Indeed, the early conviction
of the essential difference between the life of this world and that
of the next lived on, and, as the Church became increasingly a
worldinstitution, found vent in monasticism, which was simply the effort to
put into more consistent practice the other-worldly life, and to
make more thoroughgoing work of the saving of one's soul.
Contributing to the same result was the emphasis upon the necessity
of personal purity or holiness, which Paul's contrast between flesh
and spirit had promoted, and which early took the supreme place
given by Christ to love and service. The growing difficulty of
realizing the ascetic ideal in the midst of the world, and within
the world-church, inevitably drove multitudes of those who took
their religion seriously to retire from society and to seek
salvation and the higher:life, either in solitude, or in company
with kindred spirits.

There were Christian monks as
early as the 3rd century, and before the end of the 4th monasticism
(q.v.) was an established institution both in East and West. The
monks and nuns were looked upon as the most consistent Christians,
and were honoured accordingly. Those who did not adopt the monastic
life endeavoured on a lower plane and in a less perfect way to
realize the common ideal, and by means of penance to atone for the deficiencies in their
performance. The existence of monasticism made it possible at once
to hold up a high moral standard before the world and to permit the
ordinary Christian to be content with something lower. With the
growth of clerical sacerdotalism the higher standard was
demanded also of the clergy, and the principle came to be generally
recognized that they should live the monastic life so far as was
consistent with their active duties in the world. The chief
manifestation of this was clerical celibacy, which had become widespread already
in the 4th century. Among the laity, on the other hand, the ideal
of holiness found realization in the observance of the ordinary
principles of morality recognized by the world at large, in
attendance upon the means of grace provided by the Church, in fasting at stated intervals, in
eschewing various popular employments and amusements, and in
almsgiving and prayer.
Christ's principle of love was widely interpreted to mean chiefly
love for the Christian brotherhood, and within that circle the
virtues of hospitality, charity and helpfulness were
widely exercised; and if the salvation of his own soul was regarded
as the most important affair of every man, the service of the
brethren was recognized as an imperative Christian duty. The
fulfilling of that duty was one of the most beautiful features of
the life of the early Church, and it did perhaps more than anything
else to make the Christian circle attractive.

3. Worship. - The primitive belief in the immediate
presence of the Spirit affected the religious services of the
Church. They were regarded in early days as occasions for the free
exercise of spiritual gifts. As a consequence the completest
liberty was accorded to all Christians to take such part as they
chose, it being assumed that they did so only under the Spirit's
prompting. But the result of this freedom was confusion and
discord, as is indicated by Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (see chapters xi.,
xiv.). This led to the erection of safeguards, which should prevent
the continuance of the unseemly conditions (on Paul's action in the
matter, see McGiffert's Apostolic Age, p. 52 3).
Particular Christians were designated to take charge of the
services, and orders of worship were framed out of which grew
ultimately elaborate liturgies (see Liturgy). The Lord's Supper first took on a
more stereotyped character, and prayers to be used in connexion
with it are found already in the Didache (chapters ix. and
x.). The development cannot here be traced in detail. It may simply
be said that the general tendency was on the one hand toward the
elaboration and growing magnificence of the services, especially
after the Church had become a state institution and had taken the
place of the older pagan cults,
and on the other hand toward the increasing solemnity and mystery of certain parts,
particularly the eucharist, the sacred character of which was
such as to make it sacrilegious to admit to it the unholy, that is,
outsiders or Christians under discipline (cf. Didache,
ix.). It was, in fact, from the Lord's table that offending
disciples were first excluded. Out of this grew up in the 3rd or
4th century what is known as the arcani disciplina, or
secret discipline of the Church, involving the concealment from the
uninitiated and unholy of the more sacred parts of the Christian
cult, such as baptism and
the eucharist, with their various accompaniments, including the
Creed and the Lord's Prayer. The same interest led to the division
of the services into two general parts, which became known
ultimately as the missa ,eatechumenorum and the miss y
fidelium, - that is, the more public service of prayer, praise
and preaching open to all, including the catechumens or candidates
for Church membership, and the private service for the
administration of the eucharist, open only to full members of the
Church in good and regular standing. Meanwhile, as the general
service tended to grow more elaborate, the missa fidelium
tended to take on the character of the current Greek mysteries (see
Eucharist; Hatch,
Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian
Church, 1890; Anrich, Das auf das Christentum, 1894;
Wobbermin, Religionsgeschichtliche .Studien zur Frage der
Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike
Mysterienwesen, 1896). Many of the terms in common use in them
were employed in connexion with the Christian rites, and many of
the conceptions, particularly that of sharing in immortality by
communion with deity, became an essential part of Christian
doctrine. Thus the early idea of the services, as occasions for
mutual edification through the interchange of spiritual gifts, gave
way in course of time to the theory that they consisted of sacred
and mysterious rites by means of which communion with God is
promoted. The emphasis accordingly came to be laid increasingly
upon the formal side of worship, and a value was given to the
ceremonies as such, and their proper and correct performance by
duly qualified persons, i.e. ordained priests, was made
the all-important thing.

4. The Church and the Sacraments. - According to Paul,
man is flesh and so subject to death. Only as he becomes a
spiritual being through mystical union with Christ can he escape
death and enjoy eternal life in the spiritual realm. In the Epistle to the Ephesians the
Christian Church is spoken of as the body of Christ (iv. 12 ff., v.
30); and Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, early in the 2nd century, combined the
two ideas of union with Christ, as the necessary condition of
salvation, and of the Church as the body of Christ, teaching that
no one could be saved unless he were a member of the Church (cf.
his Epistle to the Ephesians 4, 1 5; Trall. 7; Phil. 3, 8; Smyr. 8;
Magn. 2, 7). Traces of the same idea are found in Irenaeus (cf. Adv.
Haer. iii. 2 4, I, iv. 26, 2), but it is first clearly set
forth by Cyprian, and receives from him its classical expression in
the famous sentence " Salus
extra ecclesiam non est" (Ep. 73, 21; cf. also Ep. 4, 4;
74,7; and De unitate ecclesiae, 6: " habere non potest
Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem "). The Church thus
became the sole ark of salvation,
outside of which no one could be saved. Intimately connected with
the idea of the Church as an ark of salvation are the sacraments or
means of grace. Already as early as the 2nd century the rite of
baptism had come to be thought of as the sacrament of regeneration, by means of which
a new divine nature is born within a man (cf. Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. i. 21, 1, iii. 17, I; and his newly discovered
Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, chap. 3), and the
eucharist as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, feeding
upon which one is endowed with immortality (cf. Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. iv. 18, 5, v. 2, 2). In the early days the Church was
thought of as a community of saints, all of whose members were
holy, and as a consequence discipline was strict, and offenders
excluded from the Church were commonly not readmitted to membership
but left to the mercy of God.
The idea thus became general that baptism, which had been almost
from the beginning the rite of entrance into the Church, and which
was regarded as securing the forgiveness of all pre-baptismal sins,
should be given but once to any individual. Meanwhile, however,
discipline grew less strict (cf. the Shepherd of Hermas,
Vis. v. 3; M. iv. 7; Sim. viii.

6, ix. 19, 26, &c.); until finally, under the influence of
the idea of the Church as the sole ark of salvation, it became the
custom to readmit all penitent offenders on condition that they did
adequate penance. Thus there grew up the sacrament of penance,
which secured for those already baptized the forgiveness of
post-baptismal sins. This sacrament, unlike baptism, might be
continually repeated (see Penance). In connexion with the sacraments grew
up also the theory of clerical sacerdotalism. Ignatius had denied
the validity of a eucharist administered independently of the
bishop, and the principle finally established itself that the
sacraments, with an exception in cases of emergency in favour of
baptism, could be performed only by men regularly ordained and so
endowed with the requisite divine grace for their due
administration (cf. Tertullian, De Exhort. cast. 7;
De Bapt. 7, 17; De Praescriptione Haer, 41; and
Cyprian, Ep. 67. For the later influence of the Donatist
controversy upon the sacramental development see Donatists). Thus the clergy
as distinguished from the laity became true priest ' ', and the latter were made wholly
dependent upon the former for sacramental grace, without which
there is ordinarily no salvation (see Holy Order).

5. Christian Doctrine

Two tendencies appeared in the thought of the primitive Church,
the one to regard Christianity as a law given by God for the
government of men's lives, with the promise of a blessed
immortality as a reward for its observance; the other to view it as
a means by which the corrupt and mortal nature of man is
transformed, so that he becomes a spiritual and holy being. The
latter tendency appeared first in Paul, afterwards in the Gospel
and First Epistle of John, in
Ignatius of Antioch and in the Gnostics. The former found
expression in most of our New Testament writings, in all of the apostolic
fathers except Ignatius, and in the Apologists of the 2nd
century. The two tendencies were not always mutually exclusive, but
the one or the other was predominant in every case. Towards the end
of the 2nd century they were combined by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. To him salvation bears a
double aspect, involving both release from the control of the devil and the transformation of
man's nature by the indwelling of the Divine. Only he is saved who
on the one hand is forgiven at baptism and so released from the
power of Satan, and then goes on to live in obedience to the divine
law; and on the other hand receives in baptism the germ of a new
spiritual nature and is progressively transformed by feeding upon
the body and blood of the divine Christ in the eucharist. This
double conception of salvation and of the means thereto was handed
down to the Church of subsequent generations and became fundamental
in its thought. Christianity is at once a revealed law which a man
must keep, and by keeping which he earns salvation, and a
supernatural power whereby his nature is transformed and the divine
quality of immortality imparted to it. From both points of view
Christianity is a supernatural system without which salvation is
impossible, and in the Christian Church it is preserved and
mediated to the world.

The twofold conception referred to had its influence also upon
thought about Christ. The effect of the legal view of Christianity
was to make Christ an agent of
God in the revelation of the divine will and truth, and so a
subordinate being between God and the world, the Logos of current Greek thought. The effect of the
mystical conception was to identify Christ with God in order that
by his incarnation the divine nature might be brought into union
with humanity and the latter be transformed. In this case too a
combination was effected, the idea of Christ as the incarnation of
the Logos or Son of God being retained and yet his deity being
preserved by the assertion of the deity of the Logos. The
recognition of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was
practically universal before the close of the 3rd century, but his
deity was still widely denied, and the Arian controversy which
distracted the Church of the 4th century concerned the latter
question. At the council of Nicaea in 325 the deity of
Christ received official sanction and was given formulation in the
original Nicene Creed. Controversy continued for some time, but
finally the Nicene decision was recognized both in East and West as
the only orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was believed to carry
with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with Father and Son
in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and so the
victory of the Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the
doctrine of the Trinity as a part of the orthodox faith (see
especially the writings of the Cappadocian fathers of the late 4th
century, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen) .

The assertion of the deity of the Son incarnate in Christ raised
another problem which constituted the subject of dispute in the
Christological controversies of the 4th and following centuries.
What is the relation of the divine and human natures in Christ? At
the council of Chalcedon in 451 it was
declared that in the person of Christ are united two complete
natures, divine and human,which retain after the union all their
properties unchanged. This was supplemented at the third council of
Constantinople
in 680 by the statement that each of the natures contains a will,
so that Christ possesses two wills. The Western Church accepted the
decisions of Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constantinople, and so the
doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in Christ were
handed down as orthodox dogma in
West as well as East.

Meanwhile in the Western Church the subject of sin and grace, and the relation of divine and human
activity in salvation, received especial attention; and finally, at
the second council of Orange in 529, after both Pelagianism and
semi-Pelagianism had been repudiated, a moderate form of
Augustinianism was adopted,, involving the theory that every man as
a result of the fall is in such a condition that he can take no
steps in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed by
the divine grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in
the good thus begun except by the constant assistance of that
grace, which is mediated only by the Catholic Church. This decision
was confirmed by PopeBoniface II., and
became the accepted doctrine in the Western Church of the middle
ages. In the East, Augustine's, predestinationism had little
influence, but East and West were one in their belief that human
nature had been corrupted by the fall, and that salvation therefore
is possible only to one who has received divine grace through the
sacraments. Agreeing as they did in this fundamental theory, all
differences were of minor concern.

In general it may be said that the traditional theology of the Church took
its material fromvarious sources - Hebrew, Christian,. Oriental,
Greek and Roman. The forms in which it found expression were
principally those of Greek philosophy on the one: hand and of Roman law on the other (see
Christianity).

6. Organization. - The origin and early development of
ecclesiastical organization are involved in obscurity. Owing to the
once prevalent desire of the adherents of one or another polity to
find support in primitive precept or practice, the question has assumed a
prominence out of proportion to its real importance, and the few
and scattered references in early Christian writings have been made
the basis for various elaborate theories.

In the earliest days the Church was regarded as a divine.
institution, ruled not by men but by the Holy Spirit. At the. same
time it was believed that the Spirit imparted different gifts. to
different believers, and each gift fitted its recipient for the
performance of some service, being intended not for his own good
but for the good of his brethren (cf. I Cor. xii.; Eph. iv. The
chief of these was the gift of teaching, that is, of understanding
and interpreting to others the will and truth of God. Those who
were endowed more largely than their fellows with this gift were
commonly known as apostles, prophets and teachers (cf. Acts xiii.
I; i Cor. xii. 28; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iV. II; Didache,
xi.). The apostles were travelling missionaries or
evangelists. There were many of them in the primitive Church, and
only gradually did the term come to be applied exclusively to the
twelve and Paul. There is no sign that the apostles, whether the
twelve or others, held any official position in the Church. That
they had a large measure of authority of course goes without
saying, but it depended always upon their brethren's recognition of
their possession of the divine gift of apostleship, and the right
of Churches or individuals to test their claims and to refuse to
listen to them if they did not vindicate their divine call was
everywhere recognized. Witness, for instance, Paul's reference to
false apostles in 2 Cor. xi. 13, and his efforts to establish his
own apostolic character to the satisfaction of the Corinthians and
Galatians (I Cor. ix. I ff.; 2 Cor. x. 13; Gal. i. 8 ff.); witness
the reference in Rev. ii. 2 to the fact that the Church at Ephesus had tried certain men
who claimed to be apostles and had found them false, and also the
directions given in the Didache for testing the character
of those who travelled about as apostles. The passage in the
Didache is especially significant: " Concerning the
apostles and prophets, so do ye according to the ordinance of the gospel.
Let every apostle when he cometh to you be received as the Lord.
But he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need
a second likewise. But if he abide three days he is a false
prophet. And when the apostle departeth let him receive nothing
save bread until he findeth
shelter.. But if he ask money he is a false prophet " (ch. xi.). It
is clear that a man who is to be treated in this way by the congregation is not
an official ruler over it.

Between the apostles, prophets and teachers no hard-and-fast.
lines can be drawn. The apostles were commonly missionary prophets,
called permanently or temporarily to the special work of
evangelization (cf. Acts xiii. 1; Did. xi.), while the
teachers seem to have been distinguished both from apostles and
prophets by the fact that their spiritual endowment was less
strikingly supernatural. The indefiniteness of the boundaries
between the three classes, and the free interchange of names, show
how far they were from being definite offices or orders within the
Church. Apostleship, prophecy and teaching were only functions,
whose frequent or regular exercise by one or another, under the
inspiration of the Spirit, led his brethern to call him an apostle,
prophet or teacher.

But at an early day we find regular officers in this and that
local Church, and early in the 2nd century the three permanent
offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon existed at any rate in Asia Minor (cf. the
Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch). Their rise was ,due principally
to the necessity of administering the charities of the Church,
putting an end to disorder and confusion in the religious services,
and disciplining offenders. It was naturally to the apostles,
prophets and teachers, its most spiritual men, that the Church
looked first for direction and control in all these matters. But
such men were not always at hand, or sometimes they were absorbed
in other duties. Thus the need of substitutes began to be felt here
and there, and as a consequence regular offices within the local
Churches gradually made their appearance, sometimes simply
recognized as charged with responsibilities which they had already
voluntarily assumed (cf.I. Cor. xvi. 15), sometimes appointed by an
apostle or prophet or other specially inspired man (cf. Acts xiv.
23; Titus i. 5; 1 Clement 44),
sometimes formally chosen by the congregation itself (cf. Acts vi.,
Did. xi.). These men naturally acquired more and more as
time passed the control and leadership of the Church in all its
activities, and out of what was in the beginning more or less
informal and temporary grew fixed and permanent offices, the
incumbents of which were recognized as having a right to rule over
the Church, a right which once given could not lawfully be taken
away unless they were unfaithful to their trust. Not continued endowment by the Spirit, but
the possession of an ecclesiastical office now became the basis of
authority. The earliest expression of this genuinely official
principle is found in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, ch.
xliv. Upon these officers devolved ultimately not only the
disciplinary, financial and liturgical duties referred to, but also
the still higher function of instructing their fellow-Christians in
God's will and truth, and so they became the substitutes of the
apostles, prophets and teachers in all respects (cf. 1 Tim. iii. 2,
v. 17; Titus i. 9; Did. 15; 1 Clement 44; Justin's first
Apology, 67).

Whether in the earliest days there was a single officer at the
head of a congregation, or a plurality of officers of equal authority, it
is impossible to say with assurance. The few references which we
have look in the latter direction (cf., for instance, Acts vi.;
Phil. i. 1; 1 Clement 42, 44; Did. 14), but we are not
justified in asserting that they represent the universal custom.
The earliest distinct evidence of the organization of Churches
under a single head is found in the Epistles of Ignatius of
Antioch, which date from the latter part of the reign of Trajan (c. 116).
Ignatius bears witness to the presence in various Churches of Asia
Minor of a single bishop in control, with whom are associated as
his subordinates a number of elders and deacons. This form of
organization ultimately became universal, and already before the
end of the 2nd century it was established in all the parts of
Christendom with which we are acquainted, though in Egypt it seems to have been the
exception rather than the rule, and even as late as the middle of
the 3rd century many churches there were governed by a plurality of
officers instead of by a single head (see Harnack, Mission and
Ausbreitung des Christenthums, pp. 337 seq.). Where there were
one bishop and a number of presbyters and deacons in a church, the
presbyters constituted the bishop's council, and the deacons his
assistants in the management of the finances and charities and in
the conduct of the services. (Upon the minor orders which arose in
the 3rd and following centuries, and became ultimately a training
school for the higher clergy, see Harnack, Texte and
Untersuchungen, ii. 5; English translation under the title of
Sources of the Apostolic Canons, 1895.)
Meanwhile the rise and rapid spread of Gnosticism produced a great crisis in the
Church of the 2nd century, and profoundly affected the
ecclesiastical organization. The views of the Gnostics, and of Marcion as well, seemed to the
majority of Christians destructive of the gospel, and it was widely
felt that they were too dangerous to be tolerated. The original
dependence upon the Spirit for light and guidance was inadequate.
The men in question claimed to be Christians and to enjoy divine illumination as truly
as anybody, and so other safeguards appeared necessary. It was in
the effort to find such safeguards that steps were taken which
finally resulted in the institution known as the Catholic Church.
The first of these steps was the recognition of the teaching of the
apostles (that is, of the twelve and Paul) as the exclusive
standard of Christian truth. This found expression in the
formulation of an apostolic scripture canon, our New Testament, and of an apostolic
rule of faith, of which the old Roman symbol, the original of our present Apostles'
Creed, is one of the earliest examples. Over against the claims of
the Gnostics that they had apostolic authority, either oral or
written, for their preaching, were set these two standards, by
which alone the apostolic character of any doctrine was to be
tested (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. i. 10, iii. 3, 4; and
Tertullian, De Prescriptione Haer. passim). But these
standards proved inadequate to the emergency, for it was possible,
especially by the use of the allegorical method, to interpret them
in more than one way, and their apostolic origin and authority were
not everywhere admitted. In view of this difficulty, it was claimed
that the apostles had appointed the bishops as their successors, and that the
latter were in possession of special divine grace enabling them to
transmit and to interpret without error the teaching of the
apostles committed to them. This is the famous theory known as "
apostolic succession." The idea of the apostolic appointment of
church officers is as old as Clement of Rome (see 1 Clement 44), but
the use of the theory to guarantee the apostolic character of
episcopal teaching was due to the exigencies of the Gnostic
conflict. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii. 3 ff., iv. 26, iv. 33,
v. 20), Tertullian (De prescriptione, 32), and Hippolytus
(Philosophumena, bk. i., preface) are our earliest
witnesses to it, and Cyprian sets it forth clearly in his epistles
(e.g. Ep. 33, 43, 59,66, 69). The Church was thus in
possession not only of authoritative apostolic doctrine, but also
of a permanent apostolic office, to which alone belonged the right
to determine what that doctrine is. The combination of this idea
with that of clerical sacerdotalism completed the Catholic theory
of the Church and the clergy. Saving grace is recognized as
apostolic grace, and the bishops as successors of the apostles
become its sole transmitters. Bishops are therefore necessary to
the very being of the Church, which without them is without the
saving grace for the giving of which the Church exists (cf.
Cyprian, Ep. 33, " ecclesia super episcopos constituitur "; 66, "
ecclesia in episcopo "; also Ep. 59, and De unitate
eccles. 17).

These bishops were originally not diocesan but congregational,
that is, each church, however small, had its own bishop. This is
the organization testified to by Ignatius, and Cyprian's insistence
upon the bishop as necessary to the very existence of the Church
seems to imply the same thing. Congregational episcopacy was the rule for a number of
generations. But after the middle of the 3rd century diocesan
episcopacy began to make its appearance here and there, and became
common in the 4th century under the influence of the general
tendency toward centralization, the increasing power of city
bishops, and the growing dignity of the episcopate (cf. canon 6 of
the council of Sardica, and canon 57 of
the council of Laodicea;
and see Harnack, Mission and Ausbreitung, pp. 319 seq.).
This enlargement of the bishop's parish and multiplication of the
chuches under his care led to a change in the functions of the
presbyterate. So long as each church had its own bishop the
presbyters constituted simply his council, but with the growth of
diocesan episcopacy it became the custom to put each congregation
under the care of a particular presbyter, who performed within it
most of the pastoral
duties formerly discharged by the bishop himself. The presbyters,
however, were not independent officers. They were only
representatives of the bishop, and the churches over which they
were set were all a part of his parish, so that the Cyprianic
principle, that the bishop is necessary to the very being of the
Church, held good of diocesan as well as of congregational
episcopacy. The bishop alone possessed the right to ordain; through
him alone could be derived the requisite clerical grace; and so the
clergy like the laity were completely dependent upon him.

The growth of the diocesan principle promoted the unity of the
churches gathered under a common head. But unity was carried much
further than this, and finally resulted in at least a nominal
consolidation of all the churches of Christendom into one whole.
The belief in the unity of the entire Church had existed from the
beginning. Though made up of widely scattered congregations, it was
thought of as one body of Christ, one people of God. This ideal
unity found expression in many ways. Intercommunication between the
various Christian communities was very active. Christians upon a
journey were always sure of a warm welcome and hospitable
entertainment from their fellow-disciples. Messengers and letters
were sent freely from one church to another. Missionaries and
evangelists went continually from place to place. Documents of
various kinds, including gospels and apostolic epistles, circulated
widely. Thus in various ways the feeling of unity found expression,
and the development of widely separated parts of Christendom
conformed more or less closely to a common type. It was due to
agencies such as these that the scattered churches did not go each
its own way and become ultimately separate and diverse
institutions. But this general unity became official, and expressed
itself in organization, only with the rise of the conciliar and metropolitan systems.
Already before the end of the and century local synods were held in
Asia Minor to deal with Montanism, and in the 3rd century
provincial synods became common, and by the council of Nicaea
(canon 5) it was decreed that they should be held twice every year
in every province. Larger synods representing the churches of a
number of contiguous provinces also met frequently; for instance,
in the early 4th century at Elvira, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea and Arles, the last representing the entire Western
world. Such gatherings were especially common during the great
doctrinal controversies of the 4th century. In 325 the first
general or ecumenical council, representing theoretically the
entire Christian Church, was held at Nicaea. Other councils of the
first period now recognized as ecumenical by the Church both East
and West are Constantinople I. (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon
(451), Constantinople II. (553) All these were called by the
emperor, and to their decisions he gave the force of law. Thus the
character of the Church as a state institution voiced itself in
them. (See CouNcIL.) The theory referred to above, that the bishops
are successors of the apostles, and as such the authoritative
conservators and interpreters of apostolic truth, involves of
course the solidarity of the episcopate, and the assumption that
all bishops are in complete harmony and bear witness to the same body of doctrine. This
assumption, however, was not always sustained by the facts. Serious
disagreements even on important matters developed frequently. As a
result the ecumenical council came into existence especially for
the purpose of settling disputed questions of doctrine, and giving
to the collective episcopate the opportunity to express its voice
in a final and official way. At the council of Nicaea, and at the
ecumenical councils which followed, the idea of an infallible
episcopate giving authoritative and permanent utterance to
apostolic and therefore divine truth, found clear expression, and
has been handed down as a part of the faith of the Catholic Church
both East and West. The infallibility of the episcopate
guarantees the infallibility of a general council in which not the
laity and not the clergy in general, but the bishops as successors
of the apostles, speak officially and collectively.

Another organized expression of the unity of the Church was
found in the metropolitan system, or the grouping of the churches
of a province under a single head, who was usually the bishop of
the capital city, and was known as the metropolitan bishop. The
Church thus followed in its organization the political divisions of
the Empire (cf. for instance canon 12 of the council of Chalcedon,
which forbids more than one metropolitan see in a province; also
canon 17 of the same council: " And if any city has been or shall
hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the
arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and
municipal forms "). These metropolitan bishops were common in the
East before the end of the 3rd century, and the general existence
of the organization was taken for granted by the council of Nicaea
(see canons 4, 6, 7). In the West, on the other hand, the
development was much slower.

Meanwhile the tendency which gave rise to the metropolitan
system resulted in the grouping together of the churches of a
number of contiguous provinces under the headship of the bishop of
the most important city of the district, as, for instance, Antioch,
Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, Milan, Carthage, Arles. In canon 6
of the council of Nicaea the jurisdiction of the bishops of
Alexandria, Rome and Antioch over a number of provinces is
recognized. At the council of Constantinople (381) the bishop of
Constantinople or New Rome was ranked next after the bishop of Rome
(canon 3), and at the council of Chalcedon (451) he was given
authority over the churches of the political dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace (canon 28). To the bishops
of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria was added at the
council of Chalcedon (session 7) the bishop of Jerusalem, the
mother church of Christendom, and the bishops thus recognized as
possessing supreme jurisdiction were finally known as
patriarchs.

Meanwhile the Roman episcopate developed into the papacy, which claimed supremacy
over the entire Christian Church, and actually exercised it
increasingly in the West from the 5th century on. This development
was forwarded by Augustine, who in his famous work De
civitate Dei identified the Church with the kingdom of God,
and claimed that it was supreme over all the nations of the earth,
which make up the civitas terrena or earthly state.
Augustine's theory was ultimately accepted everywhere in the West,
and thus the Church of the middle ages was regarded not only as the
sole ark of salvation, but also as the ultimate authority, moral,
intellectual and political. Upon this doctrine was built, not by
Augustine himself but by others who came after him, the structure
of the papacy, the bishop of Rome being finally recognized as the
head under Christ of the civitas Dei, and so the supreme
organ of divine authority on earth (see Papacy and Pope).

Historical Sources of the First Period

These are of the same general character for Church history as
for general history - on the one hand monumental, on the other hand
documentary. Among the monuments are churches, catacombs, tombs and
inscriptions of various kinds, few antedating the 3rd century, and
none adding greatly to the knowledge gained from documentary
sources (see De Rossi, Roma
sotteranea, 1864 ff., and its English abridgment by Northcote
and Brownlow, 1870; Andre Perate, L'Archeologie
chre'tienne, 1892; W. Lowrie, Monuments of the Early
Church, 1901, with good bibliography). The documents comprise
imperial edicts, rescripts, &c., liturgies, acts of councils,
decretals and letters of
bishops, references in contemporary heathen writings, and above all
the works of the Church Fathers. Written sources from the 1st and
2nd centuries are relatively few, comprising, in addition to some
scattered allusions by outsiders, the New Testament, the Apostolic
Fathers, the Greek Apologists, Clement of Alexandria, the old
Catholic Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus) and a few
Gnostic fragments. For the 3rd, and especially the 4th and
following centuries, the writers are much more numerous; for
instance, in the East, Origen
and his disciples, and later Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Apollinaris, Basil and
the two Gregories, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of Alexandria,
Pseudo-Dionysius; in the
West, Novatian, Cyprian, Commodian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus,
Jerome, Augustine, Prosper, Leo the
Great, Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Faustus,
Gennadius, Ennodius, Avitus, Caesarius, Fulgentius and many
others.

There are many editions of the works of the Fathers in the
original, the most convenient, in spite of its defects, being that
of J. P. Migne (Patrologia Graeca, 166 vols., Paris, 1857 ff.; Patrologia
Latina, 221 vols., 1844 ff.). Of modern critical editions,
besides those containing the works of one or another individual,
the best are the Berlin
edition of the early Greek Fathers (Die griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 1897
ff.), and the Vienna edition
of the Latin Fathers (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum, 1867 ff.), both of first-rate importance. There is
a convenient English translation of most of the writings of the
ante-Nicene Fathers by Roberts and Donaldson (Ante-Nicene
Christian Library, 25 vols., Edinburgh, 1868 ff., American reprint in nine
vols., 1886 ff.). A continuation of it, containing selected works
of the Nicene and post-Nicene period, was edited by Schaff and
others under the title A Select Library of Nicene and
post-Nicene Fathers (series 1 and 2; 28 vols., Buffalo and New York, 1886 ff.).

On early Christian literature, in addition to the works on
Church history, see especially the monumental Geschichte der
altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, by Harnack (1893
ff.). The brief Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, by G. Kruger (1895, English
translation 1897) is a very convenient summary. Bardenhewer's
Patrologie (1894) and his Geschichte der
altkirchlichen Litteratur (1902 ff.) should also be mentioned.
See also Smith and Wace's invaluable Dictionary of Christian
Biography (1877 ff.). (A. C. McG.) B. THE Christian Church In
The Middle Ages The ancient Church was the church of the Roman
empire. It is true that from the 4th century onwards it expanded
beyond the borders of that empire to east and west, north and
south; but the infant churches
which gradually arose in Persia and Abyssinia, among some of the scattered
Teutonic races, and among the Celts of Ireland, were at first not co-operating factors
in the development of Christendom: they received without giving in
return. True historic life is only to be found within the church of
the Empire.

The middle ages came into being at the time when the political
structure of the world, based upon the conquests of Alexander
the Great and the achievements of Julius Caesar, began to disintegrate. They were
present when the believers in Mahomet held sway in the Asiatic and African
provinces which Alexander had once brought under the intellectual
influence of Hellenism;
while the Lombards, the West Goths, the Franks and the AngloSaxons
had established kingdoms in Italy, Spain,
Gaul and Britain. The question is: what was the position
of the Church in this great change of circumstances, and what form
did the Church's development take from this time onwards? In
answering this question we must consider East and West separately;
for their histories are no longer coincident, as they had been in
the time of the Roman dominion.

I. THE East. (a) The Orthodox Church. - Ancient and
medieval times were not separated by so deep a gulf in the East as
in the West; for in the East the Empire continued to exist,
although within narrow limits, until towards the end of the middle
ages. Constantinople only fell in 1453. Ecclesiastical Byzantinism
is therefore not a product of the middle ages: it is the outcome of
the development of the eastern half of the empire from the time of
Constantine the Great. Under Justinian I. all its essential features
were already formed: imperial power extended equally over State and
Church; indeed, care for the preservation of dogma and for the
purity of the priesthood was the chief duty of the ruler. To fulfil
this duty was to serve the interests of both State and people; for
thus " a fine harmony is established, and whatever good exists
becomes the portion of the whole human race." Since the emperor
ruled the Church there was no longer any question of independence
far the bishops, least of all for the patriarch in Constantinople; they were in
every respect subordinate to the emperor.

The orthodoxy of the Eastern Church was also a result
of the Church's development after the time of Constantine. In the
long strife over dogma the old belief of the Greeks in the value of
knowledge had made itself felt, and this faith was not extinct in
the Eastern Church. There is no doubt that in the beginning of the
middle ages both general and theological education stood higher
among the Greeks than in more western countries. In the West there
were no learned men who could vie with Photius (ca. 820-891) in range of
knowledge and variety of scientific attainment. But the strife over
dogma came to an end with the 7th century. After the termination of
the monothelite controversy (638-680), creed and doctrines were
complete; it was only necessary to preserve them intact. Theology,
therefore, now resolved itself into the collection and reproduction of the
teaching of ancient authorities. The great dogmatist of the Eastern
Church, John
of Damascus (ca. 699-753), who stood on the threshold of the middle
ages, formulated clearly and precisely his working principle: to
put forward nothing of his own, but to present the truth according
to the authority of the Bible and of the Fathers
of the Church. Later teachers, Euthymius Zigadenus (d.
circa 1120), Nicetas Choniates (d. circa 1200),
and others, proceeded further on the sameLlines; Euthymius, in
particular, often uses an excerpt instead of giving his own
exposition.

This attitude towards dogma did not mean that it was less prized
than during the period of strife. On the contrary, the sacred
formulae were revered because they were believed to contain the
determination of the highest truths: the knowledge of God and of
the mystery of salvation. Yet it is intelligible that religious
interest should have concerned itself more keenly with the mystic
rites of divine worship than with dogma. Here was more than
knowledge; here were representations of a mystic sensuousness, solemn rites, which brought the
faithful into immediate contact with the Divine, and guaranteed to
them the reception of heavenly powers. What could be of more
importance than to be absorbed in this transcendental world? We may
gauge the energy with which the
Greek intellect turned
in this direction if we call to mind that the controversy about
dogma was replaced by the controversy about images. This raged in
the Eastern Church for more than a century (726-843), and only sank
to rest when the worship of images was unconditionally conceded. In
this connexion the image was not
looked upon merely as a symbol, but as the vehicle of the presence
and power of that which it represented: in the image the invisible
becomes operative in the visible world. Christ did not seem to be
Christ unless he were visibly represented. What an ancient teacher
had said with regard to the worship of Christ as the revelation of
the Eternal Father - " Honours paid to the earthly representative
are shared by the heavenly Archetype " - was now transferred to the
painted image: it appeared as an analogy to the Incarnation. It was for this
reason that the victory of image worship was celebrated by the
introduction of the festival of the Orthodox Faith.

It is consistent with this circle of ideas that initiation into the
profound mysteries of the liturgy was regarded, together with the
preservation of dogma, as the most exalted function of theology. A
beginning had been made, in the 5th century, by the neoplatonic
Christian who addressed his contemporaries under the mask of Dionysius the Areopagite. He
is the first of a series of theological mystics which continued
through every century of the middle ages. MaximusConfessor, the heroic defender of
Dyotheletism (d. 662), Symeon, the New Theologian (d.
circa 1040), Nicolaus Cabasilas (d. 1371), and
Symeon, like Nicholas, archbishop of
Thessalonica (d. 1 4 29), were the most conspicuous representatives
of this Oriental mysticism. They left all the dogmas and
institutions of the Church untouched; aspiring above and beyond
these, their aim was religious experience.

It is this striving after religious experience that gives to the
Oriental monachism of the middle ages its peculiar character. In
the 5th and 6th centuries Egypt and Palestine had been the classic
lands of monks and monasteries. But when, in consequence of the
Arab invasion, the monasticism of those countries was cut off from
intercourse with the rest of Christendom, it decayed.
Constantinople and Mount Athos
gained proportionately in importance during the middle ages. At
Constantinople the monastery of Studium, founded about 460,
attained to supreme influence during the controversy about images.
On Mount Athos the first monastery was founded in the year 963, and
in 1045 the number of monastic foundations had reached 180. In
Greek monachism the old Hellenic ideal of the wise man who has no
wants (abraprcaa) was from the first fused with the Christian
conception of unreserved self-surrender to God as the highest aim
and the highest good. These ideas governed it in medieval times
also, and in this way monastic life received a decided bent towards
mysticism: the monks strove to realize the heavenly life even upon
earth, their highest aim being the contemplation of God and of His
ways. The teachings of Symeon " the New Theologian " on these
matters lived on in the cloisters; it was taken up by the Hesychasts of the 14th
century, and developed into a peculiar theory as to the perception of the Divine
Light. In spite of all opposition their teaching was finally
justified by the Eastern Church (sixth synod of Constantinople, 1351). And rightly so,
for it was the old Greek piety minted afresh.

The Eastern Church, then, throughout the middle ages, remained
true in every particular to her ancient character. It cannot be
said that she developed as did the Western Church during this
period, for she remained what she had been; but she freely
developed her original characteristics, consistently, in every
direction. This too is life, though of a different type from that
of the West.

That there was life in the Eastern Church is also proved by the
fact that the power of expansion was not denied her.
Through her agency an important bulwark for the Christian faith was created in
the new nations which had sprung into existence since the beginning
of the middle ages: the Bulgarians, the Servians, and the
multifarious peoples grouped under the name of Russians. There is a
vast difference in national character between these young peoples
and the successors of the Hellenes; and it is therefore all the
more significant to find that both the Church and religious
sentiment should in their case have fully preserved the Byzantine
character. This proves once more the ancient capacity of the Greeks
for the assimilation of foreign elements.

There was yet another outcome of this stubborn persistency of a
peculiar type - the impossibility of continuing to share the life
of the Western Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was a
separation desired; but it was inevitable, since the lives
of East and West were moving in different directions. It was the
fall of Constantinople that first weakened the vital force of the
Eastern Church. May we hope that the events of modern times are
leading her towards ards a renaissance?

(b) The Nestorian and the Monophysite Churches

Since the time when the church of eastern Syria had decided, in opposition to the church of
the Empire, to cling to the ancient views of Syrian theologians -
therefore also to the teaching and person of Nestorius - her relations were broken off
with the church in western Syria and in Greek and Latin countries;
but the power of Nestorian, or, as it was termed, Chaldaic
Christianity, was not thereby diminished. Separated from the West,
it directed its energies towards the East, and here its nearest neighbour was the Persian
church. The latter followed, almost without opposition, the impulse
received from Syria; from the rule of the patriarch Babaeus (Syr.
Bab-hai, 498-503) she may be
considered definitely Nestorian. A certain number, too, of Arabic
Christians, believers living on the west coast of India, the so-called Christians of St Thomas, and finally those
belonging to places nearer the middle of Asia (Merv, Herat, Samarkand), remained in communion with the
Nestorian church. Thus there survived in mid-Asia a
widely-scattered remnant, which, although out of touch with the
ancient usages of Christian civilization, yet in no way lacked
higher culture. Nestorian philosophers and medical practitioners
became the teachers of the great Arabian natural philosophers of
the middle ages, and the latter obtained their knowledge of Greek
learning from Syriac
translations of the works of Greek thinkers.

Political conditions at the beginning of the middle ages
favoured the Nestorian church, and the fact that the Arabs had conquered Syria,
Palestine and Egypt, made it possible for her to exert an influence
on the Christians in these countries. Of still more importance was
the brisk commercial intercourse between central Asia and the countries
of the Far East; for this led the Nestorians into China. The inscription of Si-ngan-fu (before 781)
proves a surprisingly widespread extension of the Christian faith
in that country. That it also possessed adherents in southern Siberia we gather from the
inscriptions of Semiryetchensk, and in the beginning of the 11th
century it found its way even into Mongolia. Nowhere were the nations Christian,
but the Christian faith was everywhere accepted by a not
insignificant minority. The foundation of the Mongolian empire in
the beginning of the 13th century did not disturb the position of
the Nestorian church; but the revival of the Mahommedan power,
which was coincident with the downfall of the Mongolian empire, was
pregnant with disaster for her. The greater part of Nestorian
Christendom was now swallowed up by Islam, so that only remnants of this once
extensive church have survived until modern times.

The middle ages were far more disastrous for the Monophysites than for
the Nestorians; in their case there was no alternation of rise and decline, and we
have only a long period of gradual exhaustion to chronicle. Egypt
was the home of Monophysitism, whence it extended also into Syria.
It was due to the great Jacob of Edessa (Jacob Baradaeus, d.
578) that it did not succumb to the persecution by the power of the
Orthodox Empire, and out of gratitude to him the Monophysite
Christians of Syria called themselves Jacobites. The Arab conquest (after 635)
freed the Jacobite church entirely from the
oppression of the Orthodox, and thereby assured its continuance.
The church, however, never attained any greater development, but on
the contrary continued to lose adherents from century to century.
While Jacob of Edessa is said to have ordained some 100,000 priests
and deacons for his fellow-believers, in the 16th century the
Jacobites of Syria were estimated at only 50,000 families.

The Monophysite church of Egypt had a like fate. At the time of
the separation of the churches the Greeks here had remained
faithful to Orthodoxy, the Copts
to Monophysitism. Here too the Arab conquest (641) put an end to
the oppression of the native Christians by the Greek minority; but
this did not afford the Coptic church any possibility of vigorous
development. It succumbed to the ceaseless alternation of tolerance
and persecution which characterized the Arab rule in Egypt, and the
mass of the Coptic people became unfaithful to the Church. At the
time of the conquest of the country by the Turks (1517) the Coptic church seems already to
have fallen to the low condition in which the 19th century found
it. Though at the time of the Arab conquest the Copts were reckoned
at six millions, in 1820 the Coptic Christians numbered only about
one hundred thousand, and it is improbable that their number can
have been much greater at the close of the middle ages. Only in
Abyssinia the daughter church of the Coptic church succeeded in
keeping the whole people in the Christian faith. This fact,
however, is the sole outcome of the history of a thousand years; a
poor result, if measured by the standard of the rich history of the
Western world, yet large enough not to exclude the hope of a new
development.

THE West. (a) The Early Middle Ages. The Catholic Church as
influenced by the Foundation of the Teutonic States. - While
the Eastern Church was stereotyping those peculiar characteristics
which made her a thing apart, the Church of the West was brought
face to face with the greatest revolution that Europe has ever experienced. At the end of the
6th century all the provinces of the Empire had become independent
kingdoms, in which conquerors of Germanic race formed the dominant
nationality., The
remnants of the Empire showed an uncommonly tough vitality. It is
true that the Teutonic states succeeded everywhere in establishing
themselves; but only in England and in the erstwhile Roman Germany did the Roman
nationality succumb to the Teutonic. In the other countries it not
only mantained itself, but was able to assimilate the ruling German
race; the Lombards, West Goths, Swabians, and even the Franks in
the greater part of Gaul became Romanized. Consequently the
position of the Christian Church was never seriously affected. This
is the great fact which stands out at the beginning of the history
of the Church in the middle ages. The continuity of the political
history of Europe was violently interrupted by the Germanic
invasion, but not that of the history of the Church. For, in view
of the facts above stated, it was of small significance that in
Britain Christianity was driven back into the western portion of
the island still held by the Britons, and that in the countries of
the Rhine and!Danube a few
bishoprics disappeared.

This was of the less importance, as the Church immediately made
preparations to win back the lost territory. On the frontier line
of ancient and medieval times stands the figure of Gregory I., the
incarnation as it were of the change that was taking place: half
Father of the Church, half medieval pope. He it was who sent the monk Augustine to England, in order
to win over the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian faith.
Augustine was not the first preacher of the Gospel at Canterbury. A Frankish
bishop, Liudhard, had laboured there before his time; but the
mission of Augustine and his ordination as a bishop were decisive
in the conversion of the country and the establishment of the
Anglo-Saxon church. On the continent an extension of the Frankish
supremacy towards the east had already led to the advance of
Christendom. Not only were the bishoprics in the towns of the Rhine
country re-established, but as the Franks colonized the country on
both sides of the Main, they carried the Christian faith into the
very heart of Germany. Finally, the dependence of the Swabian and
Bavarian peoples on the Frankish empire paved the way for
Christianity in those provinces also. Celtic monks worked as
missionaries in this part of the country side by side with Franks.
In England it had not been possible to bring the old British and
the young Anglo-Saxon churches into friendly union; but in spite of
this the Celts did not abstain from working at the common tasks of
Christendom, and the continent has much to thank them for. When the
first century of the middle ages came to an end the Church had not
only reoccupied the former territory of the Empire, she had already
begun to overstep its limits.

In so doing she had remained as of old and had yet become new.
Creed and dogma, above all, remained unchanged. The doctrinal
decisions of the ancient Church remained the indestructible canon
of belief, and what the theologians of the ancient Church had
taught was reverenced as beyond improvement. The entire form of
divine worship remained therefore unaltered. Even where the Latin
tongue was not understood by the people, the Church preserved it in
the Mass and in the administration of the sacraments, in her
exorcisms and in her benedictions. Furthermore, the organization of
ecclesiastical offices remained unchanged: the division of the
Church into bishoprics and the grouping together of bishoprics into
metropolitan dioceses. Finally, the property and the whole social
status of the Church and of the hierarchy remained unchanged, as did also the
conviction that the perfection of the Christian life was to be
sought and found in the monastic profession.

Nevertheless, the new conditions did exercise the strongest
influence upon the character of the Church. The churches of the
Lombards, West Goths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons, all counted themselves parts of the
Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church had altered its condition;
it lacked the power of organization, and split up into territorial
churches. Under the Empire the ecumenical council had been looked
upon as the highest representative organ of the Catholic Church;
but the earlier centuries of the middle ages witnessed the convocation of no
ecumenical councils. Under the Empire the bishop of Rome had
possessed in the Church an authority recognized and protected by
the State; respect for Rome and for the successor of Saint Peter was not
forgotten by the new territorial churches, but it had altered in
character; legal authority had become merely moral authority; its
wielder could exhort, warn, advise but could not command.

On the other hand, the kings did command in the Church. They
certainly claimed no authority over faith or doctrine, and they too
respected doctrinal law; but they succeeded in asserting their
rights to a practical share in the government of the Church. The
clergy and laity of a diocese together elected their bishop, as
they had done before; but no one could become a bishop against the
will of the king, and the confirmation of their choice rested with
him. The bishops continued to meet in synods as before, but the
councils became territorial synods; they were called together at
irregular intervals by the king, and their decisions obtained legal
effect only by royal sanction.

In these circumstances the intrusion of Germanic elements into
ecclesiastical law is easy to
understand. This is most clearly recognizable in the case of
churches which arose alongside the episcopal cathedrals. In the
Empire all churches, and all the property of the Church, were at
the disposal of the bishops; in Germanic countries, on the
contrary, the territorial nobles were looked upon as the owners of
churches built upon their lands, and these became " proprietary
churches." The logical consequence of this was that the territorial
nobles claimed the right of appointing clergy, and the enjoyment of
the revenues of these churches derived from the land (tithes). Even
a certain number of the monastic establishments came in this way
into the possession of the feudal landowners, who nominated abbots
and abbesses as they appointed the incumbents of their churches.
With these conditions, and with the diminution of the ascendancy of
town over country that resulted from the Teutonic conquests, is
connected the rise of the parochial system in the country. The
parishes were further grouped together into rural deaneries and
archdeaconries. Thus the diocese, hitherto a simple unit, became an
elaborately articulated whole. The bishopric of the middle ages
bears the same name as that of the ancient Church; but in many
respects it has greatness that is new.

This transformation of old institutions is the first great
result of Germanic influence in the Christian Church. It continues
to the present day in the universal survival of the parochial
system. In the middle ages the civilizing task of the Church was
first approached in England. This was the home of the Latin
Christian literature and theology of medieval times. Aldhelm (d. 709) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735)
were the first scholars of the period. England was also the home of
Winfrid Bonifatius (d. 757). We are accustomed to look upon him
chiefly as a missionary; but his completion of the conversion of
the peoples of central Germany (Thuringians and Hessians) and his
share in that of the Frisians, are the least part of his life-work.
Of more importance is the fact that, in co-operation with the bishops of Rome, he
carried out the organization of the church in Bavaria, and began the reorganization of the
Frankish church, which had fallen into confusion and decay during
the political disorders of the last years of the Merovingians. It was
Boniface, too, who, with
the aid of numerous English priests, monks and nuns, introduced the
literary culture of England into Germany.

Pippin (d. 768) and Charlemagne (d. 814)
built on the foundations laid by Winfrid. For the importance of
Charlemagne's work, from the point of view of the Church, consists
also, not so much in the fact that, by his conversion of the
Saxons, the Avars and the Wends in the eastern Alps, he substantially extended the
Church's dominions, as in his having led back the Frankish Church
to the fulfilment of her functions as a religious and civilizing
agent. This was the purpose of his ecclesiastical legislation. The
principal means to this end taken by him was the raising of the
status of the clergy. From the priests he demanded faithfulness in
preaching and teaching, from the bishops the conscientious
government of their dioceses. The monasteries, too, learned to
serve the Church by becoming nurseries of literary and theological
culture. For the purpose of carrying out his ideas Charlemagne
gathered round him the best intellects of Europe. None was more
intimately associated with him than the AngloSaxon Alcuin (d. 804); but he was only
one among many. Beside him are the Celts Josephus Scottus and
Dungal, the Lombards Paulinus and Paulus Diaconus, the West Goth Theodulf and many Franks.
Under their guidance theology flourished in the Frankish empire. It
was as little original as that of Bede; for on the continent, too,
scholars were content to think what those of old had thought before
them. But in so doing they did not only repeat the old formulae;
the ideas of the men of old sprang into new life. This is shown by
the searching discussions to which the Adoptionist controversy gave
rise. At the same time, the controversy with the Eastern Church
over the adoration of
images shows that the younger Western theology felt itself equal,
if not superior to the Greek. This was in fact the case; for it
knew how to treat the question, which divided the Greeks, in a more
dispassionate and practical manner than they.

The second generation of Frankish theologians did not lag behind
the first. Hrabanus of Fulda
(who died archbishop of Mainz in
856) was in the range of his knowledge undoubtedly Alcuin's
superior. He was the first learned theologian produced by Germany.
His disciple, Abbot Walaf rid Strabo of Reichenau (d. 849), was the author of the
Glossa Ordinaria, a work which formed the foundation of
biblical exposition throughout the middle ages. France was still more richly provided with
theologians in the 9th century: her most prominent names are Hincmar, archbishop of Reims (d.
882), Bishop Prudentius of Troyes (d. 861), the monks Servatus Lupus (d. 862), Radbert Paschasius
(d. circa 860), and Ratramnus (d. after 868); and the last
theologian who came into France from abroad, Johannes Scotus Erigena (d.
circa 880). The theological method of all these was merely
that of restatement. But the controversy about predestination,
which, in the 9th century, Hincmar and Hrabanus fought out with the
monk Gottschalk of
Fulda, as well as the discussions that arose from the definition of
the doctrine of transubstantiation of Radbert,
enable us to gauge the intellectual energy with which theological
problems were once more being handled.

Charlemagne followed his father's policy in carrying out his
ecclesiastical measures in close association with the bishops of
Rome. He renewed the donation of Pippin, and as Patrician
he took Rome under his protection. From Pope Adrian I. he received the
Dionyso-Hadriana, the Roman collection of material bearing
on the ancient ecclesiastical law. But the Teutonic elements
maintained their place in the law of the Frankish Church; and this
was not altered by the fact that, since Christmas Boo, the king of the Franks and
Lombards had borne the title of Roman emperor. On the contrary,
Rome itself was now for the first time affected by the predominance
of the new empire; for Charlemagne converted the patriciate into
effective sovereignty, and the successor of St Peter became the chief metropolitan
of the Frankish empire.

There were, indeed, forces tending in the contrary direction;
and these were present in the Frankish empire. Evidence of this is
given by the canon law
forgeries of the 9th century: the capitula of Angelram,
the Capitularies of Benedictus Levita (see Capitulary), and the great collection of the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. For the moment, however, this party met
with no success. Of more importance was the fact that at Rome the
old conditions, the old claims, and the old law were unforgotten.
Developing the ideas of Leo I.,
Gelasius I. and
Gregory the Great, Nicholas I. (858-867) drew a picture
of the divine right and unlimited power of the bishop of Rome,
which anticipated all that the greatest of his successors were,
centuries later, actually to effect. The time had not, however, yet
come for the establishment of the papal world-dominion. For, while
the power of Charlemagne's successors was decaying, the papacy
itself became involved in the confusion of the party strife of
Italy and of the city of Rome, and was plunged in consequence into
such an abyss of degradation
(the so-called Pornocracy), that it was in danger of forfeiting
every shred of its moral authority over Christendom.

(b) Central Period of the Middle Ages. Dominance of the
Roman Spirit in the Church. - After the accession of the House
of Saxony (919), the national
ecclesiastical system, founded upon the principles of Carolingian
law, developed in Germany with fresh energy. The union in 962 by Otto I. of the revived Empire
with the German kingship brought the latter into uninterrupted
contact with the papacy. The revelation of the antagonism between
the German conception of ecclesiastical affairs and Roman views of
ecclesiastical law was sooner or later inevitable. This was most
obvious in the matter of appointment to bishoprics. At Rome
canonical election was alone regarded as lawful; in Germany, on the
other hand, developments since the time of Charlemagne had led to
the actual appointment of bishops being in the hands of the king,
although the form of ecclesiastical election was preserved. For the
transference of a bishopric a special legal form was evolved - that
of investiture, the
king investing the bishop elect with the see by delivering to him
the ring and pastoral staff. No one found anything
objectionable in this; investiture with a bishopric was parallel
with the appointment by a territorial proprietor to a patronal
church.

The practice customary in Germany was finally transferred to
Rome itself. The desperate position of the papacy in the 11th
century obliged Henry
III. to intervene. When, on the 24th of December 1046, after
three rival popes had been set aside, he nominated Suidgar, bishop
of Bamberg, as bishop of
Rome before all the people in St Peter's, the papacy was bestowed
in the same way as a German bishopric; and;,'what had occurred in
this case was to become the rule. By procuring the transference of
the patriciate from the Roman people to himself Henry assured his influence over the appointment
of the popes, and accordingly also nominated the successors of Clement II.

His intervention saved the papacy. For the popes nominated by
him, Leo IX. in particular,
were men of high character, who exercised their office in a loftier
spirit than their corrupt predecessors. They placed themselves at
the head of the movement for ecclesiastical reform. But was it
possible for the relation between Empire and Papacy to remain what
Henry III. had made it?

The original sources of this reform movement lay far back, in
the time of the Carolingians. It has been pointed out how
Charlemagne pressed the monks into the service of his civilizing
aims. We admire this; but it is certain that he thereby alienated
monasticism from its original ideals. These, however, had far too
strong a hold upon the Roman world for a reaction against the new
tendency to be long avoided. This reaction began with the reform of
Benedict of Aniane (d. 821), the aim of which was to bring the Benedictine order back
to the principles of its original rules. In the next century the
reform movement acquired a fresh centre in the Burgundian monastery
of Cluny. The energy of a
succession of distinguished abbots and the disciples whom they
inspired succeeded in bringing about the victory of the reforming
ideas in the French monasteries; once more the rule of St Benedict
controlled the life of the monks. A large number of the reformed
monasteries attached themselves to the congregation of Cluny, thus
assuring the influence of reformed monasticism upon the Church, and
securing likewise its independence of the diocesan bishops, since
the abbot of Cluny was subordinate of the pope alone. (See Cluny; Benedictines and Monasticism.) At the same time that Cluny
began to grow into importance, other centres of the monastic reform
movement were established in Upper and Lower Lorraine; and before long the activity of the
Cluniac monks made itself felt in Italy. In Germany Poppo of Stavelot (d. 1048) was a
successful champion of their ideas; in England Dunstan (d. 988 as
archbishop of Canterbury) worked independently, but on similar
lines. Everywhere the object was the same: the supreme obligation
of the Rule, the renewal of discipline, and also the economic
improvement of the monasteries. The reform movement had originally
no connexion with ecclesiastical politics; but that came later when
the leaders turned their attention to the abuses prevalent among
the clergy, to the conditions obtaining in the Church in defiance of the
ecclesiastical law. " Return to the canon law! " was now the
battle-cry. In the Cluniac circle was coined the principle:
Canonica auctoritas Dei lex est, canon law being taken in
the Pseudo-Isidorian sense. The programme of reform thus included not only
the extirpation of simony and
Nicolaitism, but also the freeing of the Church from the influence
of the State, the recovery of her absolute control over all her
possessions, the liberty of the Church and of the hierarchy.

As a result, the party of reform placed itself in opposition to
those ecclesiastical conditions which had arisen since the
conversion of the Teutonic peoples. It was, then, a fact
pregnant with the most momentous consequences that Leo IX. attached
himself to the party of reform. For, thanks to him and to the men
he gathered round him (Hildebrand, Humbert and others), their
principles were established in Rome, and the pope himself became
the leader of ecclesiastical reform. But the carrying out of
reforms led at once to dissensions with the civil power, the
starting-point being the attack upon simony.

Originally, in accordance with Acts viii. 18 et seq., simony was
held to be the purchase of ordination. In the 9th century the
interpretation was extended to include all acquisition of
ecclesiastical offices or benefices for money or money's worth.
Since the landed proprietors disposed of churches and convents, and
the kings of bishoprics and abbeys, it became possible for them too
to commit the sin of simony; hence a final expansion, in the iith
century, of the meaning of the term. The PseudoIsidorian idea being
that all lay control over things ecclesiastical is wrong, all
transferences by laymen of ecclesiastical offices or benefices,
even though no money changed hands in the process, were now classed
as simony (Humbert, Adversus Simoniacos, 1057-1058). Thus
the lord who handed over a living was a simonist, and so too was
the king who invested a bishop. On this question the battle began.
The Church at first refrained from contesting the rights of the
landowners over their own churches, and concentrated her attack
upon investiture. In 10J9 the new system of papal election
introduced by Nicholas
II. ensured the occupation of the Holy See by a pope favourable
to the party of reform; and in 1078 Gregory VII. issued his prohibition of lay
investiture. In the years of conflict that followed Gregory looked
far beyond this point; he set his aim ever higher; until, in the
end, his idea was to concentrate all ecclesiastical power in the
hands of the pope, and to raise the papacy to the dominion of the
world. Thus was to be realized the old dream of Augustine: that of a Kingdom of God on
earth under the rule of the Church. But it was not given to Gregory
to reach this goal, and his
successors had to return again to the strife over investiture. The
settlement of IIII may be said to have embodied the only solution
of the great question that was right in principle, since it
pronounced in favour of a clear distinction between the spiritual
and temporal spheres. However, a solution that was right in
principle proved impossible in practice, and the long struggle
ended in a compromise
by the Concordat of Worms (1122). The essential part of
this was that the Empire accepted the canonical election of
bishops, and allowed the metropolitan to confer the sacred office
by gift of ring and pastoral staff; while the Church acknowledged
that the bishop held his temporal rights from the Empire, and was
therefore to be invested with them by a touch from the royal sceptre. A similar solution was
arrived at in England. Henry
I. also renounced his claim to bestow ring and pastoral staff,
but kept the right of induction into the temporalities (I106 -
I107). In France the demands of the Church were successful to the
same degree as in England and Germany, but without any conflict.
Thus the Germanic element in the law regarding appointment to
bishoprics was eliminated. Somewhat later it disappeared also in
the case of the churches of less importance, patronal rights over
these being substituted for the former absolute ownership. The
pontificate of Alexander III. (1159-1181) decided
this.

Since the time of Charlemagne Germanic influence had
preponderated in the West, as is shown in the expansion of the
Church no less than in matters of ecclesiastical law. The whole
progress of Christianity in Europe from the 9th to the 12th century
was due - if we exclude Eastern Christendom - to the Teutonic
nations; neither the papacy nor the peoples of Latin race were
concerned in it. German priests and bishops carried the Christian
faith to the Czechs and the Moravians, laboured among the
Hungarians and the Poles, and won the wide district between the Elbe and the Oder at once for Christianity and for the German
nation. Germany, too, was the starting-point for the conversion of
the Scandinavian countries, which was completed by English priests
with the assistance of native princes.

But, even while the Teutonic peoples were thus taking the lead, we can see the Latin races
beginning to assert themselves. The monastic reform movement was
essentially Latin in origin; and even more significant was the fact
that scholasticism, the new theology, had its
home in the Latin countries. Aristotelian dialectics had always
been taught in the schools; and reason as well as authority had
been appealed to as the foundation of theology; but for the
theologians of the 9th and 10th centuries, whose method had been
merely that of restatement, ratio and auctoritas
were in perfect accord. Then
Berengar of Tours (d. 1088)
ventured to set up reason against authority: by reason the truth
must be decided. This involved the question of the relation in
theology of authority and reason, and of whether the theological
method is authoritative or rational. To these questions Berengar
gave no answer; he was ruined by his opposition to Radbert's
doctrine of transubstantiation. The Lombard Anselm (d. 110 9), archbishop of Canterbury, was
the first to deal with the subject. He took as his starting-point
the traditional faith; but he was convinced that whoever has
experience of the truths of the faith would be able to understand
them. In accordance with this principle he pointed out the goal of
theology and the way to its attainment: the function of theology is
to demonstrate dogmas sola ratione. It was a bold
conception - too bold for the medieval world, for which faith was
primarily the obligation to believe. It was easy, therefore, to
understand why Anselm's method did not become the dominant one in
theology. Not he, but the Frenchman Abelard (d. 1142), was the
creator of the scholastic method. Abelard, too, started from
tradition; but he discovered that the statements of the various
authorities are very often in the relation of sic et non,
yes and no. Upon this fact he based his pronouncement as to the
function of theology: it must employ the dialectic method to reconcile the
contradictions of tradition, and thus to shape the doctrines of the
faith in accordance with reason. By teaching this method Abelard
created the implements for the erection of the great theological
systems of the schoolmen of the 12th and 13th centuries: Peter Lombard (d.
1160), Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), Albertus Magnus
(d. 1280), and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1275). They
adventured a complete exposition of Christian doctrine that should
be altogether ecclesiastical and at the same time altogether
rational. In so doing they set to work at the same time to complete
the development of ecclesiastical dogma; the formulation of the
Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments was the work of
scholasticism.

Canon law is the twin-sister of scholasticism. At the very time
when Peter Lombard was shaping his Sentences, the monk Gratian of Bologna was making a new collection of laws. It
was not only significant that in the Concordia discordantium canonum
ecclesiastical laws, whether from authentic or forged sources, were gathered
together without regard to the existing civil law; of even greater eventual
importance was the fact that Gratian taught that the contradictions
of the canon law were to be reconciled by the same method as that
used by theology to reconcile the discrepancies of doctrinal
tradition. Thus Gratian became the founder of the science of canon
law, a science which, like the scholastic theology, was entirely
ecclesiastical and entirely rational (see Canon Law).

Like the new theology and the new science of law, the new
monasticism was also rooted in Latin soil. In the first of the new
orders, that of the Cistercians (1098), the old monastic ideal
set forth in the Rule of Benedict of Nursia still
prevailed; but in the constitution and government of the order new
ideas were at work. In the Premonstratensian order, however,
founded in I120 by Norbert of Xanten, a new conception of the whole
function of monachism was introduced: the duty of the priest-monk
is not only to work out his own salvation, but, by preaching and
cure of souls, to labour for others. This was the dominant idea of
the order of friars preachers founded in 1216, on the basis of the
Premonstratensian rule, by Dominic of Osma (see Dominic, Saint, and
Dominicans). It was
also the basis of the order of friars minor (Franciscans, q.v.),
founded in 1210. For the foundation of Francis
of Assisi came into existence as a society of itinerant
preachers: no one was more deeply convinced than Francis of the duty of working for others, and
his own mission was, as he said, to win souls. But with this idea
he fused another, namely, that it is the task of the monk to
imitate the humility and poverty of Jesus; and his order thus
became a mendicant order. From the
earliest times the monks had renounced all private property, and no
individual monk, but only the order to which he belonged, could
acquire possessions. For Francis this was not enough: he put " holy
poverty " in place of renunciation of private property, and allowed
neither monk nor monastery to have any possessions whatever; for
only thus is the following of Jesus complete. So mighty was the
impression made by the poverty of the Minorites, that the Dominicans promptly
followed their example and likewise became mendicant.

This alone would serve to indicate the remarkable deepening of
the religious life that had taken place in the Latin countries. Its
beginning may be traced as early as the iith century (Pietro
Damiani, q.v.), and in the 12th century the most influential
exponent of this new piety was Bernard (q.v.) of Clairvaux, who taught men
to find God by leading them to Christ. Contemporary with him were
Hugh of St Victor and his pupil Richard of St Victor, both
monks of the abbey of St Victor
at Paris, the aim of whose teaching, based on that of the
PseudoDionysius, was a mystical absorption of thought in the
Godhead and the surrender of self to the Eternal Love. Under the
influence of these ideas, in part purely Christian and in part
neo-platonic, piety gained in warmth and depth and became more
personal; and though at first it flourished in the monasteries, and
in those of the mendicant orders especially, it penetrated far
beyond them and influenced the laity everywhere.

The new piety did not set itself in opposition either to the
hierarchy or to the institutions of the Church, such as the
sacraments and the discipline of penance, nor did it reject those
foreign elements (asceticism, worship of saints and the like) which
had passed of old time into Christianity from the ancient world.
Its temper was not critical,
but aggressively practical. It led the Romance nations to battle
for Christendom. In the 11 th and 12th centuries the chivalry of Spain and
southern France took up the struggle with the Moors as a holy war. In the autumn of 1096 the
nobles of France and Italy, joined by the Norman barons of England and Sicily, set out to wrest the Holy Land from the
unbelievers; and for more than a century the cry, " Christ's land
must be won for Christ," exercised an unparalleled power in Western
Christendom.

All this meant a mighty exaltation of the Church, which ruled
the minds of men as she had hardly ever done before. Nor was it
possible that the position of the bishop of Rome, the supreme head
of the Western Church, should remain unaffected by it. Two of the
most powerful of the German emperors, Frederick I. and his son Henry VI., struggled to renew
and to maintain the imperial supremacy over the papacy. The close
relations between northern Italy and the Empire, and the union of
the sovereignty of southern Italy with the German crown, seemed to afford the means for keeping
Rome in subjection. But Frederick I. fought a losing battle, and
when at the peace of Venice
(1177) he recognized Alexander III. as pope, he relinquished the
hope of carrying out his Italian policy; while Henry VI. died at the
early age of thirty-two (1197), before his far-reaching schemes had
been realized.

The field was thus cleared for the full development of papal
power. This had greatly increased since the Concordat of Worms, and
reached its height under Innocent III. (1198-1216). Innocent
believed himself to be the representative of God, and as such the
supreme possessor of both spiritual and temporal power. He
therefore claimed in both spheres the supreme administrative,
legislative and judicial authority. Just as he considered himself
entitled to appoint to all ecclesiastical offices, so also he
invested the emperor with his empire and kings with their kingdoms.
Not only did he despatch his decretals to the universities to form
the basis of the teaching of the canon law and of the decisions
founded upon it, but he considered himself empowered to annul civil
laws. Thus he annulled the Great Charter in 1215. Just as the Curia was the supreme court of appeal in
ecclesiastical causes, so also the pope threatened disobedient
princes with deposition, e.g. the emperor Otto IV. in 1210, and John of England
in 1212.

The old institutions of the Catholic Church were transformed to
suit the new position of the pope. From 1123 onward there had again
been talk of general councils; but, unlike those of earlier times,
these were assemblies summoned by the pope, who confirmed their
resolutions. The canonical election of bishops also continued to be
discussed; but the old electors, i.e. the clergy and laity
of the dioceses, were deprived of the right of election, this being
now transferred exclusively to the cathedral chapters. The bishops kept their
old title, but they described themselves accurately as " bishops by
grace of the apostolic see," for they administered their dioceses
as plenipotentiaries of the pope; and as time went on even the
Church's criminal jurisdiction became more and more concentrated in
the hands of the pope (see Inquisition).

The rule of the Church by the Roman bishop had thus become a
reality; but the papal claim to supreme temporal authority proved
impossible to maintain, although Innocent III. had apparently
enforced it. The long struggle against Frederick II., carried on by Gregory IX. (1227-1241)
and Innocent IV.
(1243-1254), did not result in victory; no papal sentence, but only
death itself, deprived the emperor of his dominions; and when Boniface VIII.
(1294-1303), who in the bull Unam Sanctam (130z) gave the
papal claims to universal dominion their classical form, quarrelled
with Philip IV. of
France about the extension of the royal power, he could not but
perceive that the national monarchy had become a force which it was
impossible for the papacy to overcome.

(c) Close of the Middle Ages. Disintegration

While the Church was yet at the height of her power the great
revolution began, which was to end in the disruption of that union
between the Temporal and the Spiritual which, under her dominion,
had characterized the life of the West. The Temporal now claimed
its proper rights. The political power of the Empire, indeed, had
been shattered; but this left all the more room for the vigorous
development of national states, notably of France and England. At
the same time intellectual life was enriched by a wealth of fresh
views and new ideas, partly the result of the busy intercourse with
the East to which the Crusades had given the first impetus, and
which had been strengthened and extended by lively trade relations,
partly of the revived study, eagerly pursued, of ancient philosophy
and literature (see Renaissance). Old forms became too narrow, and
vigorously growing national literatures appeared side by side with
the universal Latin literature. The life of the Church, moreover,
was affected by the economic changes due to the rise of the power
of money as opposed to the old economic system based upon land.

The effects of these changes made themselves felt on all sides,
in no case more strongly than in that of the papal claims to the
supreme government of the world. Theoretically they were still
unwaveringly asserted; indeed it was not till this time that they
received their most uncompromising expression (Augustinus
Triumphus, d. 1328; Alvarus Pelagius, d. 1352). After Boniface VIII.,
however, no pope seriously attempted to realize them; to do so had
in fact become impossible, for from the time of their residence at
Avignon (1305-1377) the
popes were in a state of complete dependence upon the French crown.
But even the curialistic theory met everywhere with opposition. In
France Philip IV.'s jurists
maintained that the temporal power was independent of the
spiritual. In Italy, a little later, Dante championed the divine right of the emperor
(De Monarchia, 1311). In Germany, Marsiglio of Padua and Jean of Jandun, the
literary allies of the emperor Louis IV., ventured to define anew the nature
of the civil power from the standpoint of natural law,. and to
assert its absolute sovereignty (Defensor pacis, c. 1352);
while the Franciscan William of Occam (d. 134 9) examined,
also in Louis' interests, into the nature of the relation between
the two powers. He too concluded that the temporal power is
independent of the spiritual, and is even justified in invading the
sphere of the latter in cases of necessity.

While these thoughts were filling men's minds, opposition to the
papal rule over the Church was also gaining continually in
strength. The reasons for this were numerous, first among them
being the abuses of the papal system of finance, which had to provide funds for the
vast administrative machinery of the Curia. There was also the
boundless abuse and arbitrary exercise of the right of
ecclesiastical patronage (provisions, reservations); and further
the ever-increasing traffic in dispensations, the abuse of
spiritual punishments for worldly ends, and so forth. No means,
however, existed of enforcing any remedy until the papal schism occurred in 1378. Such a
schism as this, so intolerable to the ecclesiastical sense of the
middle ages, necessitated the discovery of some authority superior
to the rival popes, and therefore able to put an end to their
quarrelling. General councils were now once more called to mind;
but these were no longer conceived as mere advisory councils to the
pope, but as the highest representative organ of the universal
Church, and as such ranking above the pope, and competent to demand
obedience even from him. This was the view of the Germans Conrad of
Gelnhausen (d. 1390)
and Heinrich of Langenstein (d. 1397), as also of the Frenchmen
Pierre d'Ailli (d. 1420) and Jean Charlier Gerson (d. 142 9). These all recognized in the
convocation of a general council the means of setting bounds to the
abuses in the government of the Church by an extensive reform. The
council of
Pisa (1409) separated without effecting anything; but the council
of Constance (1414-1418) did actually put an end to the schism.
The reforms begun at Constance and continued at Basel (1431-1449) proved, however, insufficient.
Above all, the attempt to set up the general council as an ordinary
institution of the Catholic Church failed; and the Roman papacy,
restored at Constance, preserved its irresponsible and unlimited
power over the government of the Church. (See Papacy; Constance, Council Of, and Basel,
Council Of.) Thus the attempt to reform the Church by means of
councils failed; but this very failure led to the survival of the
desire for reform. It was kept alive by the most various
circumstances; in the first instance by the attitude of the
European states. Thanks to his recognition by the powers, Pope Eugenius IV.
(1431-1447) had been victorious over the council of
Basel; but neither France nor Germany was prepared to forgo the
reforms passed by the council. France secured their validity, as
far as she herself was concerned, by the Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges
(July 7, 1438); Germany followed with the Acceptation of Mainz
(March 26, 1439). The theory of the papal supremacy held by the
Curia was thus at least called in question.

The antagonism of the opposition parties was even more
pronounced. The tendencies which they represented had been present
when the middle ages were yet at their height; but the papacy,
while at the zenith of its
power, had succeeded in crushing the attacks made upon the creed of
the Church by its most dangerous foes, the dualistic Cathari. On
the other hand it had not been able to overcome the less radical
opposition of the " Poor Man of Lyons " (Waldo, d. C. 1217), and
even in the 15th century stray supporters of the Waldensian
teaching were to be found in Italy, France and Germany, everywhere
keeping alive mistrust of the temporal power of the Church, of her
priesthood and her hierarchy. In England the hierarchy was attacked
by John Wycliffe (d.
1384), its greatest opponent before Luther. Starting from
Augustine's conception of the Church as the community of the elect,
he protested against a church of wealth and power, a church that
had become a political institution instead of a school of
salvation, and against its head, the bishop of Rome. Wycliffe's
ideas, conveyed to the continent, precipitated the outbreak of the
Hussite storm in Bohemia. The council of
Constance thought to quell it by condemnation of Wycliffe's
teaching and by the execution of John Huss (1415). But in vain. The flame burst forth, not in Bohemia
alone, where Huss's death gave the signal for a general rising, but also in England
among the Lollards, and in
Germany among those of Huss's persuasion, who had many points of
agreement with the remnant of the Waldenses.

(See Huss; Wycliffe; Lollards; Waldenses.) This was open
opposition; but there was besides another opposing force which,
though it raised no noise of
controversy, yet was far more widely severed from the views of the
Church than either Wycliffe or Huss: this was the
Renaissance, which began its reign in Italy during the 14th
century. The Renaissance meant the emancipation of the secular
world from the domination of the Church, and it contributed in no
small measure to the rupture of the educated class with
ecclesiastical tradition. Beauty of form alone was at first sought,
and found in the antique;
but, with the form, the spirit of the classical attitude towards
life was revived. While the Church, like a careful mother, sought
to lead her children, never allowed to grow up, safely from time
into eternity, the men of the Renaissance felt that they had come
of age, and that they were entitled to make themselves at home in
this world. They wished to possess the earth and enjoy it by means
of secular education and culture, and an impassable gulf yawned
between their views of religion and morality and those of the
Church.

This return to the ideals of antiquity did not remain confined
to Italy, but the humanism
of the northern countries presents no close parallel to the Italian
renaissance. However much it agreed in admiration of the ancients,
it differed absolutely in its preservation of the fundamental ideas
of Christianity. But neither Reuchlin (d. 1522), Erasmus (d. 1536),
Faber d'Etaples (d. 1536), Thomas More (d.
1535), nor the numerous others who were their disciples, or who
shared their views, were in the least degree satisfied with the
conditions prevailing in the Church. Their ideal was a return to
that simplicity of primitive Christendom which they believed they
found revealed in the New Testament and in the writings of the
early Fathers.

To this theology could not point the way. Since the time of Duns Scotus
(d. 1308) theologians had been conscious of the discrepancy between
Aristotelianism and ecclesiastical dogma. Faith in the
infallibility of the scholastic system was thus shaken, and the
system itself was destroyed by the revival of philosophic nominalism, which had
been discredited in the 11th century by the realism of the great schoolmen. It now found a
bold supporter in William of Occam (q.v.), and through him became
widely accepted. But nominalism was powerless to inspire theology
with new life; on the contrary, its intervention only increased the
inextricable tangle of the hairsplitting questions with which
theology busied itself, and made their solution more and more
impossible.

Mysticism, moreover, which had no lack of noteworthy supporters
in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the various new departures in
thought initiated by individual theologians such as Nicolaus
Cusanus (d. 1464) and Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489), were not
competent to restore to the Church what she had once possessed in
scholasticism - that is to say, a conception of Christianity in
which all Christendom recognized the convictions in which it lived
and had its being.

This was all the more significant because Western Christendom in
the 15th century was by no means irreligious. Men's minds were
agitated by spiritual questions, and they sought salvation and the
assurance of salvation, using every means prescribed by the Church:
confession and the
communion, indulgences and relics, pilgrimages and oblations, prayers and
attendance at church; none of all these were contemned or held
cheap. Yet the age had no inward peace.

After the failure of the attempts at reform by the councils, the
guidance of the Church was left undisturbed in the hands of the
popes, and they were determined that it should remain so. In 1450
Eugenius IV. set up in opposition to the council of Basel a general
council summoned by himself, which met first at Ferrara and afterwards at Florence. Here he
appeared to score a great
success. The split between East and West had led in the 11th
century to the rupture of ecclesiastical relations between Rome and
Constantinople. This schism had lasted since the 16th of July 1054;
but now a union with the Eastern Church was successfully
accomplished at Florence. Eugenius certainly owed his success merely to
the political necessities of the emperor of the East, and his union
was forthwith destroyed owing to its repudiation by oriental
Christendom; yet at the same time his decretals of union were not
devoid of importance, for in them the pope reaffirmed the
scholastic doctrine regarding the sacraments as a dogma of the
Church, and he spoke as the supreme head of all Christendom.

This claim to the supreme government of the Church was to be
steadily maintained. In the year 1512 Julius II. called together the fifth Lateran
general council, which expressly recognized the subjection of the
councils to the pope (Leo X.'s bull Pastor Aeternum, of
the 19th of December 1516), and also declared the constitution
Unam Sanctam (see above) valid in law.

But the papacy that sought to win back its old position was
itself no longer the same as of old. Eugenius IV.'s successor, Nicholas V. (1447-1455),
was the first of the Renaissance popes. Under his successors the
views which prevailed at the secular courts of the Italian princes
came likewise into play at the Curia: the papacy became an Italian
princedom. Innocent
VIII., Alexander
VI., Julius II. were in many respects remarkable men, but they
were scarcely affected by the convictions of the Christian faith.
The terrible tragedy which was consummated on the 23rd of May 1498
before the Palazzo Vecchio, in Florence, casts a lurid light upon
the irreconcilable opposition in which the wearers of the papal
dignity stood to medieval piety; for Girolamo Savonarola was in every
fibre a loyal son of the medieval Church.

(A. H.*) C. THE Modern Church The issue in 1564 of the canons of
the council of Trent marks a very definite epoch in the history of
the Christian Church. Up till that time, in spite of the schism of
East and West and of innumerable heresies, the idea of the Church
as Catholic, not only in its faith but in its organization, had
been generally accepted. From this conception the Reformers had, at
the outset, no intention of departing. Their object had been to
purify the Church of medieval accretions, and to restore the
primitive model in the light of the new learning; the idea of rival
" churches," differing in their fundamental doctrines and in their
principles of organization, existing side by side, was as abhorrent
to them as to the most rigid partisan of Roman centralization. The actual
divisions of Western Christendom are the outcome, less of the
purely religious influences of the Reformation period than of the
political forces with which they were associated and confused. When
it became clear that the idea of doctrinal change would find no
acceptance at Rome, the Reformers appealed to the divine authority
of the civil power against that of the popes; and princes within
their several states succeeded, as the result of purely political
struggles and combinations, in establishing the form of religion
best suited to their convictions or their policy. Thus over a great
part of Europe the Catholic Church was split up into territorial or
national churches, which, whatever the theoretical ties which bound
them together, were in fact separate organizations, tending ever
more and more to become isolated and self-contained units with no
formal intercommunion, and, as the rivalry of nationalities grew,
with increasingly little even of intercommunication.

It was not, indeed, till the settlement of Westphalia in 1648, after the Thirty Years'
War, that this territorial division of Christendom became
stereotyped, but the process had been going on for a hundred years
previously; in some states, as in England and Scotland, it had long been completed; in
others, as in South Germany, Bohemia and Poland, it was defeated by the political and
missionary efforts of the Jesuits and other agents of the counter-Reformation. In any
case, it received a vast impetus from the action of the council of
Trent. With the issue of the Tridentine canons, all hope even of
compromise between the " new " and the " old " religions was
definitely closed. The anathema of the Roman Church had fallen upon
all the fundamental doctrines for which the Reformers had contended
and died; the right of free discussion within the limits of the creeds, which had given room for
the speculations of the medieval philosophers, was henceforth
curtailed and confined; and the definitions of the schoolmen were
for ever exalted by the authority of Rome into dogmas of the
Church. The Latin Church, which, by combining the tradition of the
Roman centralized organization with a great elasticity in practice and in the
interpretation of doctrine, had hitherto been the moulding force of
civilization in the West, is henceforth more or less in antagonism
to that civilization, which advances in all its branches - in
science, in literature, in art - to a greater or less degree
outside of and in spite of her, until in its ultimate and most
characteristic developments it falls under the formal condemnation
of the pope, formulated in the famous Syllabus of 1864. Considered from the
standpoint of the world outside, the Roman Church is, no less than
the Protestant communities, merely one of the sects into which
Western Christendom has been divided - the most important and
widespread, it is true, but playing in the general life and thought
of the world a part immeasurably less important than that filled by
the Church before the Reformation, and one in no sense justifying
her claim to be considered as the sole inheritor of the tradition
of the pre-Reformation Church.

If this be true of the Roman Catholic Church, it is still more
so of the other great communities and confessions which emerged
from the controversies of the Reformation. Of these the Anglican
Church held most closely to the tradition of Catholic organization;
but she has never made any higher claim than to be one of " the
three branches of the Catholic Church," a claim repudiated by Rome
and never formally admitted by the Church of the East. The
Protestant churches established on the continent, even where - as
in the case of the Lutherans - they approximate more closely
than the official Anglican Church to Roman doctrine and practice,
make no such claim. The Bible is for them the real source of
authority in doctrine; their organization is part and parcel of that of the state. They
are, in fact, the state in its religious aspect, and as such are
territorial or national, not Catholic. This tendency has been
common in the East also, where with the growth of racial rivalries
the Orthodox Church has split into a serieq of national churches,
holding the same faith but independent as to organization.

A yet further development, of comparatively recent growth, has
been the formation of what are now commonly called in England the "
free churches."
These represent a theory of the Church practically unknown to the
Reformers, and only reached through the necessity for discovering a
logical basis for the communities of conscientious dissidents from
the established churches. According to this the Catholic Church is
not a visibly organized body, but the sum of all " faithful people
" throughout the world, who group themselves in churches modelled
according to their convictions or needs. For the organization of
these churches no divine sanction is claimed, though all are
theoretically modelled on the lines laid down in the Christian
Scriptures. It follows that, while in the traditional Church, with
its claim to an unbroken descent from a divine original, the
individual is subordinate to the Church, in the " free churches "
the Church is in a certain sense secondary to the individual. The
believer may pass from one community to another without imperilling
his spiritual life, or even establish a new church without
necessarily incurring the reproach of schism. From this theory,
powerful in Great Britain and her colonies, supreme in the United
States of America, has
resulted an enormous multiplication of sects.

It follows from the above argument that, from the period of the
Reformation onward, no historical account of the Christian Church
as a whole, and considered as a definite institution, is possible.
The stream of continuity has been broken, and divides into
innumerable channels. The only possible synthesis is that of the Christianity common
to all; as institutions, though they possess many features in
common, their history is separate and must be separately dealt
with. The history of the various branches of the Christian Church
since the Reformation will therefore be found under their several
titles (see Roman Catholic Church; Church of
England; Presbyterianism; Baptists, &c., &c.). (W. A. P.)

Persian empire

Greek city-states

Many of the Greek city-states also had a 'god' or 'goddess' associated with that city.

Roman Religion and Christianity

When in Rome, the office of Pontifex Maximus was reserved for the emperor, failure to worship him as a god was sometimes punished by death, as the Roman government sought to link emperor worship with loyalty to the Empire. Many Christians and Jews were persecuted, because it was against their beliefs to worship the emperor.

^Note 4:
In Hungary the constitutional laws of 1848 declared five established churches on equal status: the Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox and Unitarian Church. In 1868 the law was ratified again after the Ausgleich. In 1895 Judaism was also recognized as the sixth established church. In 1948 every distinction between the different denominations were abolished.

Province of Maryland was founded by Irish Catholics in a state known as recusancy, but was stripped of this independence during the English Civil War by Roundheads--much as it was in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

Spanish Florida was ceded to the Great Britain in 1763, the British divided Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida continued a policy of toleration for the Catholic Residents.

^Note 1:
In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776[needs proof]; this is the date of legal abolition.

^Note 2:
in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows:
"Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged. To do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles."

^Note 3:
From 1780 Massachusetts had a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members, and did not require that it be a Congregational church. This was objected to, as in practice establishing the Congregational Church, and was abolished in 1833.

^Note 4:
Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion.

^Note 5:
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[5] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

^Note 6:
Religious Tolerance for Catholics with an Established Church of England were policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule. East Florida was lost to Spain in 1781.

^Note 7:
Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England were policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule. East Florida was returned to Spain in 1783.